MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[D-3 watcher]

I know this has been mentioned before, but I can't come up with any excuses for Augie's coach. His antics while the opposing team is shooting a free throw is weak. He's not a fan, that I get, he's the head coach, he should act like it.
Last nite he went a little farther. With Victor Davis getting set to shoot a three, coach g, yells out, let him have it, we want that. That might be a good game plan, I don't know, but Victor drains the shot, turns to g and says something. Then g explodes, yells at the refs, complaining that Victor said something to him.
I don't think a coach should ever say anything to a player on the other team, but if you chose to, don't complain when you get something back.
In the post game line, Victor tried to shake g's hand, but g didn't extend his.
He may or may not be a good coach, depending on what you think a good coach is, but I know what he isn't, ..........under control

[Titan Q]

I know this has been mentioned before, but I can't come up with any excuses for Augie's coach. His antics while the opposing team is shooting a free throw is weak. He's not a fan, that I get, he's the head coach, he should act like it.
Last nite he went a little farther. With Victor Davis getting set to shoot a three, coach g, yells out, let him have it, we want that. That might be a good game plan, I don't know, but Victor drains the shot, turns to g and says something. Then g explodes, yells at the refs, complaining that Victor said something to him.
I don't think a coach should ever say anything to a player on the other team, but if you chose to, don't complain when you get something back.
In the post game line, Victor tried to shake g's hand, but g didn't extend his.
He may or may not be a good coach, depending on what you think a good coach is, but I know what he isn't, ..........under control

Heard about this little situation earlier today.  Heard Coach G yelled (right as Victor was about to shoot), "Let him have it, it's the shot we want him taking!"  Then Victor made the 3, turned and said, "That's for you, Coach G."  Ron Rose made Victor try to apologize after the game but Coach G wouldn't shake his hand.

Victor probably shouldn't have said anything back to him...but I'm really glad he did (because it was Coach G).  Pretty funny.

Victor 3-3 from 3-point range last night.

[Titan Q]

The On Demand video of that fun little incident happens at the 31:30 mark on the player (11:54 mark of the game, made the score 15-12 IWU)...

http://client.stretchinternet.com/client/iwu.portal#

Love Coach G's whiney little reaction afterwards, looking for an official to complain to because mean Victor Davis yelled at him.

[NCF]

I think that Millikin will be a serious longshot this weekend at King Arena. Nevertheless, for two hours on Saturday night Matt Nadelhoffer will be my favorite Wheaton alumnus on the planet. That may sound like faint praise coming from a North Park grad, but I mean it with the utmost sincerity. Once the NPU @ Elmhurst game is concluded in the afternoon, I become a full-fledged fan of the Big Blue ... not simply because Millikin is one of the biggest feel-good stories of the year in all of D3 basketball, but also because of their opponent.
Go Jimmy Millikin!

What he said.

[Gregory Sager]

I know this has been mentioned before, but I can't come up with any excuses for Augie's coach. His antics while the opposing team is shooting a free throw is weak. He's not a fan, that I get, he's the head coach, he should act like it.
Last nite he went a little farther. With Victor Davis getting set to shoot a three, coach g, yells out, let him have it, we want that. That might be a good game plan, I don't know, but Victor drains the shot, turns to g and says something. Then g explodes, yells at the refs, complaining that Victor said something to him.
I don't think a coach should ever say anything to a player on the other team, but if you chose to, don't complain when you get something back.
In the post game line, Victor tried to shake g's hand, but g didn't extend his.
He may or may not be a good coach, depending on what you think a good coach is, but I know what he isn't, ..........under control

Did I miss something here? Where in the narrative did Giovanine say anything to Davis? Looks to me like he was yelling out instructions to his own players to let Davis take that shot, which is a perfectly legitimate and understandable thing for a coach to do during live action. It's the inverse of a coach yelling out, "Shooter!" when the opponent that he doesn't want to have take that shot gets the ball.

Perhaps Giovanine was yelling simply to jam up Davis, rather than making a coaching remark, but it's pretty darned hard to prove intent here -- especially since Davis was under 30% as a trey shooter last season, and was also under 30% this season until last night. It's a reasonable move for Augie to let him shoot that shot under those circumstances, and it's thus quite plausible that Giovanine was indeed being a coach rather than just an obnoxious fan with an exceptionally good seat.

It's Giovanine's yelling during opponents' free throws that people find unclassy, because that's not live action. There's no reason for a coach to yell out instructions to his team while an opponent is in the middle of a free-throw motion. There's plenty of dead time prior to the free throw (or after, if it's a two-shot foul) for that. It's a blatant attempt to jam up an opponent, and it's a universally-recognized violation of sportsmanship for a coach to do that.

But refusing to shake Davis's hand after the game? Seriously unclassy.

[robertgoulet]

I know this has been mentioned before, but I can't come up with any excuses for Augie's coach. His antics while the opposing team is shooting a free throw is weak. He's not a fan, that I get, he's the head coach, he should act like it.
Last nite he went a little farther. With Victor Davis getting set to shoot a three, coach g, yells out, let him have it, we want that. That might be a good game plan, I don't know, but Victor drains the shot, turns to g and says something. Then g explodes, yells at the refs, complaining that Victor said something to him.
I don't think a coach should ever say anything to a player on the other team, but if you chose to, don't complain when you get something back.
In the post game line, Victor tried to shake g's hand, but g didn't extend his.
He may or may not be a good coach, depending on what you think a good coach is, but I know what he isn't, ..........under control

Did I miss something here? Where in the narrative did Giovanine say anything to Davis? Looks to me like he was yelling out instructions to his own players to let Davis take that shot, which is a perfectly legitimate and understandable thing for a coach to do during live action. It's the inverse of a coach yelling out, "Shooter!" when the opponent that he doesn't want to have take that shot gets the ball.

Perhaps Giovanine was yelling simply to jam up Davis, rather than making a coaching remark, but it's pretty darned hard to prove intent here -- especially since Davis was under 30% as a trey shooter last season, and was also under 30% this season until last night. It's a reasonable move for Augie to let him shoot that shot under those circumstances, and it's thus quite plausible that Giovanine was indeed being a coach rather than just an obnoxious fan with an exceptionally good seat.

It's Giovanine's yelling during opponents' free throws that people find unclassy, because that's not live action. There's no reason for a coach to yell out instructions to his team while an opponent is in the middle of a free-throw motion. There's plenty of dead time prior to the free throw (or after, if it's a two-shot foul) for that. It's a blatant attempt to jam up an opponent, and it's a universally-recognized violation of sportsmanship for a coach to do that.

But refusing to shake Davis's hand after the game? Seriously unclassy.

Couldn't agree more with everything you said, GS.

[Titan Q]

Did I miss something here? Where in the narrative did Giovanine say anything to Davis? Looks to me like he was yelling out instructions to his own players to let Davis take that shot, which is a perfectly legitimate and understandable thing for a coach to do during live action. It's the inverse of a coach yelling out, "Shooter!" when the opponent that he doesn't want to have take that shot gets the ball.

Perhaps Giovanine was yelling simply to jam up Davis, rather than making a coaching remark, but it's pretty darned hard to prove intent here -- especially since Davis was under 30% as a trey shooter last season, and was also under 30% this season until last night. It's a reasonable move for Augie to let him shoot that shot under those circumstances, and it's thus quite plausible that Giovanine was indeed being a coach rather than just an obnoxious fan with an exceptionally good seat.

All valid and fair points.  But it's Coach G, and it's just one more Coach G thing to put on his already overflowing resume of buffoonery.  I don't think he's gonna get a ton of benefit of the doubt on most borderline things from the average CCIW fan anymore.

And think about...seriously...in all of the games you have watched, how many times has a head coach, while 10 feet from an opposing player, actually yelled out something like that?  I can't think of a single time.  I mean, we've all heard "shooter" and things like that...but has anyone actually heard, "He stinks, let him shoot!"?  And after two days of practice, and telling his guys to let Victor Davis shoot from 3, are we to believe he really needed to remind them again in that instant Victor had the ball in his hands and was about to shoot?  I don't know...it's just weird.

And yes, regardless of personal opinion on the above, the bottom line is he wouldn't shake Victor's hand afterwards.  Just bizarre really.

[sac]

I went to the highlighted moment on the video Q pointed out.  There really isn't an Augustana defender in the area, looks to me like the coach knew what he was doing.

[AndOne]

What I get from the "Stomper"-Davis exchange:

1. Davis definitely says something to G.
2. G immediately pleads to the ref for some "relief" from Davis" grievous indiscretion. Poor G. WA WA.
3. I think G got what he asked for.
4. Is there a rule a player can't say something to a coach?
5. I think all, or almost all, of us--even those of us who usually disagree--think G got just what he had coming. Most of the time you want to beat the team you play, just because they're the opposition. But when you play Augie, you want to beat G more than you want to beat Augie itself. 

[bopol]

Why would a coach let an opposing player (and then, by not shaking his hand after the game) the entire league know it is easy to get into his head?

Basically, the dude acts like a clown and if he gets treated as such, that's his fault.

[Gregory Sager]

Did I miss something here? Where in the narrative did Giovanine say anything to Davis? Looks to me like he was yelling out instructions to his own players to let Davis take that shot, which is a perfectly legitimate and understandable thing for a coach to do during live action. It's the inverse of a coach yelling out, "Shooter!" when the opponent that he doesn't want to have take that shot gets the ball.

Perhaps Giovanine was yelling simply to jam up Davis, rather than making a coaching remark, but it's pretty darned hard to prove intent here -- especially since Davis was under 30% as a trey shooter last season, and was also under 30% this season until last night. It's a reasonable move for Augie to let him shoot that shot under those circumstances, and it's thus quite plausible that Giovanine was indeed being a coach rather than just an obnoxious fan with an exceptionally good seat.

All valid and fair points.  But it's Coach G, and it's just one more Coach G thing to put on his already overflowing resume of buffoonery.  I don't think he's gonna get a ton of benefit of the doubt on most borderline things from the average CCIW fan anymore.

I certainly agree that it's difficult to give Giovanine the benefit of the doubt, considering his boorish mien. Nevertheless, in the context of the play it's perfectly reasonable to see this as a coaching reminder to his players. As I said, it's pretty darned hard to prove intent.

And think about...seriously...in all of the games you have watched, how many times has a head coach, while 10 feet from an opposing player, actually yelled out something like that?  I can't think of a single time.  I mean, we've all heard "shooter" and things like that...but has anyone actually heard, "He stinks, let him shoot!"?  And after two days of practice, and telling his guys to let Victor Davis shoot from 3, are we to believe he really needed to remind them again in that instant Victor had the ball in his hands and was about to shoot?  I don't know...it's just weird.

Part of the problem is that there's no pithy, two-syllable way of saying, "He stinks, let him shoot!" I have heard, "Let him shoot!" (or "Let her shoot!") a few times, although in our hyper-sensitive age that seems to rub some people the wrong way.

The two-days-of-practice thing doesn't strike me as odd at all. College basketball coaches are notorious over-managers who repeatedly and constantly remind their players of stuff they've already told them. I don't know if it's because they don't trust the attention span and memory retention of post-adolescent males or because the profession of head basketball coach seems to attract so many control freaks. Perhaps it's both.

And yes, regardless of personal opinion on the above, the bottom line is he wouldn't shake Victor's hand afterwards.  Just bizarre really.

Here's where I become the more scathing Giovanine critic of the two of us, Bob. I don't think it's bizarre. I think it's disgraceful. No matter what he says or does during the game, after the game is supposed to be another matter entirely. Heck, hockey players will get into fistfights during the game and then shake hands at center ice after it's over, because that's what you're supposed to do. It's not simply etiquette or good sportsmanship, it's also a sign that you have things in proper perspective; i.e., you recognize that sports is the toy department of life. There are a lot of other things in this world that are much more important than winning and losing basketball games, and character is pretty close to the top of that list. And when you're the head coach, and therefore the leader and role model of your young men, and you refuse to shake hands with an opposing player, you're setting a horrible example of how an adult male is supposed to behave.

What I get from the "Stomper"-Davis exchange:

1. Davis definitely says something to G.
2. G immediately pleads to the ref for some "relief" from Davis" grievous indiscretion. Poor G. WA WA.
3. I think G got what he asked for.
4. Is there a rule a player can't say something to a coach?
5. I think all, or almost all, of us--even those of us who usually disagree--think G got just what he had coming. Most of the time you want to beat the team you play, just because they're the opposition. But when you play Augie, you want to beat G more than you want to beat Augie itself.

Well, I don't really need an excuse to want North Park to beat Augie under any circumstances. But, yeah, I'll admit that there's a nice, warm feeling of schadenfreude that accompanies the sight of Giovanine stalking off the floor after a loss to NPU that I don't get from other opposing coaches. It's too bad that NPU has only allowed me to sample this particular flavor of schadenfreude on one occasion.

It's also too bad that I can't have my animosities lined up perfectly by having Giovanine coach Wheaton rather than Augie. That would be ideal as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, the likelihood of Giovanine ever coaching Wheaton is right up there with the likelihood of Ozzy Osbourne enlisting the Mormon Tabernacle Choir as his backup singers.

[ExBBaller40]

Here's where I become the more scathing Giovanine critic of the two of us, Bob. I don't think it's bizarre. I think it's disgraceful. No matter what he says or does during the game, after the game is supposed to be another matter entirely. Heck, hockey players will get into fistfights during the game and then shake hands at center ice after it's over, because that's what you're supposed to do. It's not simply etiquette or good sportsmanship, it's also a sign that you have things in proper perspective; i.e., you recognize that sports is the toy department of life. There are a lot of other things in this world that are much more important than winning and losing basketball games, and character is pretty close to the top of that list. And when you're the head coach, and therefore the leader and role model of your young men, and you refuse to shake hands with an opposing player, you're setting a horrible example of how an adult male is supposed to behave.

Here, here with that one. As a college coach you are supposed to be the leaders of the young men and get them ready for life. To not do that as a head coach is disgusting in my opinion. They game is over, let what happened in the boundaries of the court during the game stay there. I mean, what kind of message does that send to the players? Just disgusting.

[CCIWchamps]

It's also too bad that I can't have my animosities lined up perfectly by having Giovanine coach Wheaton rather than Augie. That would be ideal as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, the likelihood of Giovanine ever coaching Wheaton is right up there with the likelihood of Ozzy Osbourne enlisting the Mormon Tabernacle Choir as his backup singers.

Tell us newer members of the boards the story of where the animosity towards Wheaton comes from? 

[Gregory Sager]

It's also too bad that I can't have my animosities lined up perfectly by having Giovanine coach Wheaton rather than Augie. That would be ideal as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, the likelihood of Giovanine ever coaching Wheaton is right up there with the likelihood of Ozzy Osbourne enlisting the Mormon Tabernacle Choir as his backup singers.

Tell us newer members of the boards the story of where the animosity towards Wheaton comes from?

This was my response to a similar query posted by a Wheaton football alumnus four years ago on the CCIW football board. The Wheaton folks who read that board seemed to think it was pretty even-handed, so I'll post it again:

GS, I'm curious about the institutional dislike of Wheaton by NP folks.  How is it different - other than being closer geographically - from the dislike or resentment of Wheaton by many other schools with similar missions? 

Faculty poaching?  Theological differences?  Perceived Wheaton arrogance?  Single-denomination affiliation vs. broadly evangelical affiliation?  Dislike born from institutional similarity - or dissimilarity?  Is it of such a sensitive nature that you can't spell it out beyond "it's an institutional thing"?  Maybe I'm denser than average.  Maybe if I knew more about North Park as an institution and how it differs from Wheaton the answer would be obvious. But I can't figure out what you're saying the source of this longstanding, non-athletically related animosity is.  I'm not trying to argue - just curious.  When you find out someone doesn't like you, you at least want to know why.

It's not a secret, and I'm happy to spell it out for you in the interest of open dialogue and enlightenment. In so doing I run the risk of boring those of us who aren't affiliated with NPU or Wheaton, of course, but when have I ever let the risk of boring people stop me from posting something?

Several of your guesses come close to zeroing in on the answer. The single-denomination evangelical school vs. non-affiliated evangelical school issue does enter into it, because there's a proprietary sense among Covenanters regarding Covie kids and the denominational school. While nobody really thinks that NPU owns the rights to Covie kids, there's still a (not entirely rational) feeling that the Covenant's teenagers (and their parents) should be supporting the school rather than a rival. That doesn't distinguish NPU from some of the other denominationally-affiliated Christian schools that you mentioned (e.g., Calvin, Messiah, both Bethels), but since the Covenant is a small denomination the feeling is more acute. Mugsy's probably encountered some variation of this sentiment in those discussions at Glen Ellyn Covenant to which he's alluded. Still, this isn't the biggest issue behind NPU's anti-Wheaton sentiment.

The "perceived Wheaton arrogance" thing sometimes rears its head as well, which is probably an outgrowth of Wheaton's visibility as the mainstream media's default "get me an interview with an evangelical for this piece" focus upon Wheaton as the archetypical Christian college. But Parkers are reasonable enough (usually ) to realize that Wheaton College doesn't cultivate that; the mainstream media cultivates that. After all, the downside to it is that Wheaton gets ridiculed by the pundits and stereotyped by the public more than does a comparatively anonymous evangelical school such as North Park. And not even the most rabid anti-Wheaton person at NPU would argue that Wheaties foster this arrogance, since (to our consternation) most of you are just too darn nice for us to successfully accuse you of being full of yourselves.

The "theological differences" and "institutional dissimilarity" answers are the closest to hitting the nail on the head. I spoke before of some of the animus borne by Parkers coming from a sense of misunderstanding Wheaton, and this is where that enters into it. There is a widespread suspicion among NPU students and alumni that Wheaton is a fundamentalist school, and that Wheaton is filled with fundamentalists, and while the Covenant has had its share of fundies over the years the denomination itself (and most of its membership) has managed to define itself as broadly evangelical and committed to doctrinal freedom (within biblical bounds, of course) while resisting fundamentalist dogma. Naturally, any Parker with even a scintilla of awareness of what Wheaton is really like (and what truly fundamentalist schools such as Bob Jones and Liberty are really like) doesn't hold that opinion of Wheaton, but, nevertheless, enough do think it for it to be a source of misunderstanding. Like a lot of misunderstandings, it emanates from ignorance of the institution in question.

Some of that perception of Wheaton arises from the fact that Wheaton students have to sign a pledge regarding their social behavior (or, as it is now ironically termed, a "covenant"), whereas the form of in loco parentis practiced by North Park has never involved signing anything. One merely was presented with the rules (which were less stringent than Wheaton's, although Wheaton's recent concession to allow dancing has brought the two schools more in line, social-behavior-wise), and either abided by them or was disciplined for breaking them. But the fact that Wheaton required a signed pledge/covenant of its students (and faculty, too, for that matter) implied the sort of social control and directed behavior usually associated with fundamentalism, which is why so many Parkers over the years have thought of Wheaton and Wheaties as fundie. Remember my mention of that April Fool's issue of the NPC newspaper back in '71? That's a not-so-gentle allusion to said enforced social behavior, which in the fevered imagination of college students often ends up being equated with fascism.

(Ironically, the one area in which Wheaton College might be accused of having fundamentalist overtones -- the school's requirement that faculty members adhere to a premillennialist position in terms of eschatological belief -- is something of which very few Parkers are even aware.)

Nowadays, though, I'd say that by far the biggest source of division -- and by far the biggest source of Parker animosity towards Wheaton -- has to do with institutional dissimilarities. North Park has always differed from Wheaton in that they sit on the opposite sides of the fence in terms of Christian-school enrollment philosophies: North Park is open, and Wheaton is closed. That is to say, NPU does not require its students to make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, while Wheaton does. North Park is an avowedly evangelical school whose requirements and mission in and out of the classroom are explicitly Christian, and its professors are required to be professing Christians, but it does not require its students to be born-again Christians. Wheaton, on the other hand, does.

Neither enrollment philosophy is better than the other, and there are plenty of examples of both schools within the wider Christian-school rubric. But Wheaton's closed philosophy, coupled with its location in a distant upper-middle-class suburb and its overwhelmingly white, suburban, upper-middle-class student body and orientation, conveys the impression among Parkers that Wheaton is an ivory-tower sanctuary filled with sheltered Christian kids who have no exposure whatsoever to the real world and who are never seriously led to question their faith, or even desire to have their faith challenged.

At NPU, by contrast, the real world is right outside the front door of the dorm (the school is located in a safe neighborhood, but it's an unmistakeably urban environment filled with people of all colors speaking strange languages) and even inside the dorm itself (the kid in the next dorm room over might be a Buddhist from Korea, or a nominal Catholic, or a religiously-indifferent mainline Protestant, etc.). The experiences of the real world in all its nitty-grittiness challenge and refine faith and raise hard questions (or so goes the NPU mantra), even as the school itself tries to shape and nurture by asking those questions within a Christian context. Social-outreach involvement (tutoring inner-city kids, Meals On Wheels, soup-kitchen and homeless shelter work, Habitat For Humanity, ESL tutoring, etc.) is pushed very hard at North Park, and traditionally a very high percentage of resident students are involved in these sorts of urban ministries. At NPU the emphasis is placed upon the thesis in the epistle of James that faith which does not bear fruit in good works is not really faith at all.

Unfortunately, this plays right into the hands of that traditional stereotype of Wheaton and its students. I'm afraid that Parkers sometimes are the ones guilty of arrogance, not Wheaties, because Parkers feel that they are the ones living out Christ's precepts to minister to the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, etc., and that they are the ones who truly have a genuine faith that has been tested by engaging the real world -- the world doesn't get any more "real" than a block of apartment buildings in Albany Park or Uptown -- and its inhabitants. Wheaties, they feel, hold the world at bay by excluding non-Christians from their campus and by residing in a starchy, white-bread Leave It To Beaver suburb.

As I said, there's some truth here mixed in with a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings on the part of my fellow Parkers. My hopes in posting this agonizingly long essay are that: a) some of my fellow Parkers might realize that they don't necessarily have the straight 411 on Wheaton; and b) some of the Wheaton folks who really don't know any thing about, or understand, NPU will grasp a little more of where we're coming from.

[Titan Q]

PS  The whole handshake situation can be seen On Demand as well...

http://client.stretchinternet.com/client/iwu.portal#

1:54:00 or so the final shot sequence starts.  At 1:54:38 Coach Feeney talks to Victor to make sure he apologizes to Coach G...and then you can see what happens from there.

The sequence ends with, it appears, Coach G in an exchange with Coach Feeney.

#cciwdrama