MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Mr. Ypsi]

Sounds like somebody needs to invite NCC head coach Todd Raridon to be a guest on his talk show in order to mend some fences.

I already joked to d-mac that I'm holding him and the 'Hoopsville Jinx' personally responsible if the Titans lose tomorrow.   So, IF that happens, I'd vote for having him on just before IWU visits Naperville!

[bopol]

Many of the obvious superlatives concerning last Saturday's Wheaton/NCC classic battle have been well reported and documented by several of our knowledgeable posters.
However, there were two important incidents/junctures of the game, that I am not sure were part of any previous postings on the game. I apologize to the concerned party/parties if I overlooked your mention of them.

1. I believe it was late in the 1st half, NCC had played stout defense during a Wheaton possession, finally deflecting the ball out under the Wheaton basket with only 2 seconds remaining on the shot clock. Although only the 2 seconds remained, Wheaton was able to get the ball in to a man open along the left baseline who drained the shot. Can't remember who the WC player was, but how big was that play in a 2 point OT win?

2. The Cardinals had a chance to win in regulation, having the last possession, and a chance for a last second shot.
However, the WC defense knocked the ball away with about 2 seconds left, preventing the Cardinals from launching that potential game winning shot. Again, not sure who the involved WC player was as the NCC coaches had jumped up in front of me.

I think these 2 events could be considered among the turning points in the game.

Guys, I'm Bruce Dickerson and the problem with the Wheaton game was 'not enough Charlie Rosenburg'.

[D-3 watcher]

Charlie Rosenburg played a total of 4 minutes vs IWU. Which was quite puzzling considering the shape of the post players of NCC.
Players will play hurt, coaches have to decide if playing a player that isn't 100% is in the teams best interest. Clearly in the IWU game, Coach Raridon thought his injured post players were a much better option than Rosenburg. Odd since last year, he had a good game vs. IWU.

[iwu70]

I was also surprised that Rosenburg didn't play more minutes against IWU.

Good luck to the Titans @AC.  Let's bring home a W and get closer to wrapping this CCIW crown up.  It will be a bruiser of a game, no doubt, but the Titans are as ready as anyone these days to do some serious banging inside as needed.  Hope Brady Zimmer is back and can suit up for more firepower from the perimeter and do some slashing as well.

IWU70

[Titan Q]

Illinois Wesleyan @ Augustana, 7:30pm...

IWU (16-3, 8-0)
G - Dylan Overstreet, 6-3/180 So (8.3 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 5.9 apg, 2.9 A/TO)
G - Pat Sodemann, 6-3/190 So (11.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.1 apg)
F - Andrew Ziemnik, 6-4/230 Jr (8.8 ppg, 7.1 rpg)
F - Victor Davis, 6-5/235 Jr (10.5 ppg, 4.9 rpg)
F - Kevin Reed, 6-6/230 Sr (8.8 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 2.6 apg)

G - Brady Zimmer, 6-4/180 Jr (14.6 ppg, 3.1 rpg)
F - Mike Mayberger, 6-6/220 Jr (4.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg rpg)
C - Nick Anderson, 6-9/220 Jr (3.6 ppg, 1.9 rpg)

Augustana (15-4, 5-3)
G - Danielius Jurgutis, 6-0/201 So (9.0 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 0.8 apg, 0.4 A/TO)
G - Brandon Thompson, 6-1/177 So (6.3 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 2.5 apg)
F - Ben Ryan, 6-5/208 Fr (10.4 ppg, 6.0 rpg)
F - Tayvian Johnson, 6-6/193 Fr (6.1 ppg, 3.1 rpg)
C - Brandon Kunz, 6-7/205 Sr (10.8 ppg, 7.3 rpg)

F - Nic Hoepfner, 6-6/232 So (8.9 ppg, 3.5 rpg)
G - Mark Roth, 6-0/164 So (4.3 ppg)
G - Griffin Pils, 6-4/207 Fr (4.0 ppg, 2.0 rpg)


Pantagraph: http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/illinois-wesleyan/iwu-men-close-to-winning-cciw-augustana-wheaton-stand-in/article_f300c96a-6a7f-11e2-9145-001a4bcf887a.html

QC Online: http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=625363&query=

Video: http://client.stretchinternet.com/client/augustana.portal#

Live stats: http://www.augustana.edu/athletics/mbasketball/xlive.htm

WJBC Radio: http://client.stretchinternet.com/client/wjbc.portal#

Massey predicts: Augustana 67 IWU 64 (IWU #9, Augustana #14) http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2013&sub=11620

[Pat Coleman]

AndOne, don't you go abusing d-mac too much.  He also is a voter in the women's poll, and this week single-handedly gave undefeated-in-CCIW-play Carthage almost half their poll points (15 of 32).   (Since TWO different CCIW teams have won one-quarter of the last eight women's titles, I found that rather disrespectful to the conference. )

Dave is not a voter in the women's poll. Where do you get that?

[Pat Coleman]

Just to share a thought on NCC as a voter... because they have injuries is a reason to maybe knock them down the poll further than just two tough losses. I weighed the losses and then considered they are very banged up with their three key guys. Those injuries give me pause and thinking that NCC isn't going to be successful if they are injured over the long term. Thus, I personally moved NCC from #7 to #17. Should their guys recover from the injuries and start to improve and they don't lose another game, they will then move up because clearly they are improved. Of course... I am just one voter.

Dave,

Yes, you are only one voter which is undoubtedly a turn of good fortune for North Central. NCC has definitely been hit hard by injury. These injuries were all "fresh" in the Wesleyan game. To be sure, the injuries played a role in an 8 point loss AT IWU. Several Wesleyan posters made it a point to mention the handicap they imposed on the NCC attack and defense during that game. It could be debated ad nauseum whether the outcome would have been different had NCC been at "full strength." However, there is no debating that IWU did what a good team does, and took advantage of their opportunities to earn the win. While the injuries were still present in the Wheaton game, they played a distinctively lesser role in the NCC defeat which was largely due to the Cardinals not paying attention to fundamentals. Wheaton is just too good a team to try to defeat without playing good fundamental basketball as the final outcome substantiated. I think the thing to remember is that the 2 recent NCC losses were to 2 very good teams. Its not like they lost to the Illinois School For The Visually Handicapped or Community Bible College.
And while my bias is evident, may I remind you that no less of an authority than Titan Q indicated that he sensed a #7 ranking was representative of NCC"s proper placement. Now, if further losses follow in the near future,  a #17 ranking might indeed even be too high.

And be honest. As an eastern guy, don't you feel you're at least a little biased in favor of eastern and northeastern teams? I can assure you that I'm not alone in this perception among posters here in the midwest. And with specific regard to North Central, you really have never been much of a supporter. As defense exhibit #1, I cite your comments during the broadcast of the NCC/Ramapo game from Las Vegas in December. You seemed to find it very difficult to strongly voice any form of praise for any facet of the Cardinals game, most of your "compliments"  being of the "backhanded" variety. The "highlight" was when Ramapo trailed by 18 and Will Sanborn, obviously one of your favorite players, hit a 3 point bomb to "trim" the NCC lead to 15 with a little less than 13 minutes to play. Your comment at the time was something close to the fact that you expected Sanborn to likely hit 5 more three pointers in rapid order, and that the game would almost certainly either be tied up or close to it within a few more minutes of play. In fact, Sanborn hit only 1 of 6 shots from that point on, including missing 2 easy layups. Evidently, the bottle of hot sauce was close to empty at the 13 minute mark.

I also wonder in what position you placed #6 Middlebury this week? If Middlebury merits the #6 position, with a combined opponents record of 146-173 (all games), what does that say about #7 North Central whose opponents combined record is considerably better at 202-157? Perhaps its the 3 NCC losses compared with only 1 for Middlebury? However, I don't suppose the fact that 2 of those 3 losses were to teams currently ranked #12, and #20, and were both on the road, warranted as much consideration as the injuries. 

If you are going to knock and drop NCC for their injuries, what role, if any, does the Middlebury opponents combined record play in where you placed them on your ballot relative to your #17 placement of NCC?

Perhaps instead of a huge diatribe, you could read Dave's blog post:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/01/29/daves-top-25-ballot-week-9/

[Pat Coleman]

As defense exhibit #1, I cite your comments during the broadcast of the NCC/Ramapo game from Las Vegas in December. You seemed to find it very difficult to strongly voice any form of praise for any facet of the Cardinals game, most of your "compliments"  being of the "backhanded" variety. The "highlight" was when Ramapo trailed by 18 and Will Sanborn, obviously one of your favorite players, hit a 3 point bomb to "trim" the NCC lead to 15 with a little less than 13 minutes to play. Your comment at the time was something close to the fact that you expected Sanborn to likely hit 5 more three pointers in rapid order, and that the game would almost certainly either be tied up or close to it within a few more minutes of play.

Hopefully this is the last response I have to make here, but this was too ridiculous to let stand. Since Ramapo has been at our tournament before, we've seen Sanborn get hot and do some things, but this is more than even your standard everyone's-against-us hyperbole can sustain, Mark. I went back to the archive to make sure I didn't hear the same thing:

Starting at 1:15:52
DM: Kicks it out to Sanborn, first shot of the half ... buries it! That makes it a 15-point game and it's his first three of the game.
PC: Vince Kmiec was on him and had done a nice job sticking with him through a couple of screens and then kind of drifted back to play help defense and Sanborn took back a step and bam. That's what Sanborn needs is just a bit of an opening. Not much of an invitation required for him to shoot.
DM: No. And that could open him, though it was the first shot in seven minutes of the half for him... and a three-pointer! ... is good for Tiknis. Tiknis responds. ... makes it a 49-31 lead just when Ramapo seemed to get a spark.
PC: But I like Ramapo's chances if Sanborn's hot.

(Sanborn sinks a 26-footer)

DM: Sanborn from NBA hits!
PC: Much like that shot.
DM: Nicely done Pat Coleman.
PC: Thank you. No, seriously though, if Sanborn gets hot, I like Ramapo's chances better than North Central. I mean, the 15-point advantage is huge right now but ...
DM: ... that's five shots ...
PC: Ramapo is playing so far below its ceiling right now, they have a lot of room to improve, whereas North Central is playing really well.
DM: Sanborn normally a 38% 3-point shooter and 17-plus points a game. And a bail-out foul here, and honestly, not sure, I thought LoRusso was playing good defense.
PC: I thought, yeah, North Central needed to come out and pick up the ball from Brandon Williams. He was in trouble out near midcourt.

(and the game continues)

Mark, only you could take "that's five shots" and turn it into expecting Sanborn to likely hit 5 more three pointers in rapid order.

Does anyone believe you? Do you even believe yourself? That's ridiculous.

[Mr. Ypsi]

AndOne, don't you go abusing d-mac too much.  He also is a voter in the women's poll, and this week single-handedly gave undefeated-in-CCIW-play Carthage almost half their poll points (15 of 32).   (Since TWO different CCIW teams have won one-quarter of the last eight women's titles, I found that rather disrespectful to the conference. )

Dave is not a voter in the women's poll. Where do you get that?

My bad.   It was Gordonmann who posted that.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

As defense exhibit #1, I cite your comments during the broadcast of the NCC/Ramapo game from Las Vegas in December. You seemed to find it very difficult to strongly voice any form of praise for any facet of the Cardinals game, most of your "compliments"  being of the "backhanded" variety. The "highlight" was when Ramapo trailed by 18 and Will Sanborn, obviously one of your favorite players, hit a 3 point bomb to "trim" the NCC lead to 15 with a little less than 13 minutes to play. Your comment at the time was something close to the fact that you expected Sanborn to likely hit 5 more three pointers in rapid order, and that the game would almost certainly either be tied up or close to it within a few more minutes of play.

Hopefully this is the last response I have to make here, but this was too ridiculous to let stand. Since Ramapo has been at our tournament before, we've seen Sanborn get hot and do some things, but this is more than even your standard everyone's-against-us hyperbole can sustain, Mark. I went back to the archive to make sure I didn't hear the same thing:

Starting at 1:15:52
DM: Kicks it out to Sanborn, first shot of the half ... buries it! That makes it a 15-point game and it's his first three of the game.
PC: Vince Kmiec was on him and had done a nice job sticking with him through a couple of screens and then kind of drifted back to play help defense and Sanborn took back a step and bam. That's what Sanborn needs is just a bit of an opening. Not much of an invitation required for him to shoot.
DM: No. And that could open him, though it was the first shot in seven minutes of the half for him... and a three-pointer! ... is good for Tiknis. Tiknis responds. ... makes it a 49-31 lead just when Ramapo seemed to get a spark.
PC: But I like Ramapo's chances if Sanborn's hot.

(Sanborn sinks a 26-footer)

DM: Sanborn from NBA hits!
PC: Much like that shot.
DM: Nicely done Pat Coleman.
PC: Thank you. No, seriously though, if Sanborn gets hot, I like Ramapo's chances better than North Central. I mean, the 15-point advantage is huge right now but ...
DM: ... that's five shots ...
PC: Ramapo is playing so far below its ceiling right now, they have a lot of room to improve, whereas North Central is playing really well.
DM: Sanborn normally a 38% 3-point shooter and 17-plus points a game. And a bail-out foul here, and honestly, not sure, I thought LoRusso was playing good defense.
PC: I thought, yeah, North Central needed to come out and pick up the ball from Brandon Williams. He was in trouble out near midcourt.

(and the game continues)

Mark, only you could take "that's five shots" and turn it into expecting Sanborn to likely hit 5 more three pointers in rapid order.

Does anyone believe you? Do you even believe yourself? That's ridiculous.

I was 99% sure I didn't say anything of note to that fact... so thanks to Pat for transcribing the actual commentary as I was about to go look up the game myself.

As for my "bias"... I would say I am overly cautious about teams around me and actually inflate others in other parts of the country to counter my concern of any kind of bias. I certainly have more teams in the Top 25 from my region this week than in many others, but the bottom of my ballot is a hodge-podge because no one seems to be a top 15 to 20 team.

I have seen North Central in person this year, twice, and I have watched my fair share of video. I also take the time to read forums like this to gauge what people think of teams. I even chat with coaches and trusted people in different regions for their take on teams. North Central has injuries, fact... and I feel that in a scenario where they are already three games back of first place in the conference, they are not a Top 15 team. To counter that and put them #7 would also then put IWU in the top six and THAT I am not comfortable with at all. I have poured over teams on a weekly basis doing more work this year than I ever have (which drives my wife crazy) and while the CCIW is good (they have three teams in my Top 25), I don't think I should put them any higher for now.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Sounds like somebody needs to invite NCC head coach Todd Raridon to be a guest on his talk show in order to mend some fences.

Talked to him in Las Vegas... talked to Ron Rose on Monday... we will come back to the CCIW in time, but not in the very near future.

[Pat Coleman]

I was 99% sure I didn't say anything of note to that fact... so thanks to Pat for transcribing the actual commentary as I was about to go look up the game myself.

I've learned you can't trust anything he "remembers" that he perceives as a slight. Somewhere in his brain's reflection chamber it gets magnified into some massive insult.

[AndOne]

As defense exhibit #1, I cite your comments during the broadcast of the NCC/Ramapo game from Las Vegas in December. You seemed to find it very difficult to strongly voice any form of praise for any facet of the Cardinals game, most of your "compliments"  being of the "backhanded" variety. The "highlight" was when Ramapo trailed by 18 and Will Sanborn, obviously one of your favorite players, hit a 3 point bomb to "trim" the NCC lead to 15 with a little less than 13 minutes to play. Your comment at the time was something close to the fact that you expected Sanborn to likely hit 5 more three pointers in rapid order, and that the game would almost certainly either be tied up or close to it within a few more minutes of play.

Hopefully this is the last response I have to make here, but this was too ridiculous to let stand. Since Ramapo has been at our tournament before, we've seen Sanborn get hot and do some things, but this is more than even your standard everyone's-against-us hyperbole can sustain, Mark. I went back to the archive to make sure I didn't hear the same thing:

Starting at 1:15:52
DM: Kicks it out to Sanborn, first shot of the half ... buries it! That makes it a 15-point game and it's his first three of the game.
PC: Vince Kmiec was on him and had done a nice job sticking with him through a couple of screens and then kind of drifted back to play help defense and Sanborn took back a step and bam. That's what Sanborn needs is just a bit of an opening. Not much of an invitation required for him to shoot.
DM: No. And that could open him, though it was the first shot in seven minutes of the half for him... and a three-pointer! ... is good for Tiknis. Tiknis responds. ... makes it a 49-31 lead just when Ramapo seemed to get a spark.
PC: But I like Ramapo's chances if Sanborn's hot.

(Sanborn sinks a 26-footer)

DM: Sanborn from NBA hits!
PC: Much like that shot.
DM: Nicely done Pat Coleman.
PC: Thank you. No, seriously though, if Sanborn gets hot, I like Ramapo's chances better than North Central. I mean, the 15-point advantage is huge right now but ...
DM: ... that's five shots ...
PC: Ramapo is playing so far below its ceiling right now, they have a lot of room to improve, whereas North Central is playing really well.
DM: Sanborn normally a 38% 3-point shooter and 17-plus points a game. And a bail-out foul here, and honestly, not sure, I thought LoRusso was playing good defense.
PC: I thought, yeah, North Central needed to come out and pick up the ball from Brandon Williams. He was in trouble out near midcourt.

(and the game continues)

Mark, only you could take "that's five shots" and turn it into expecting Sanborn to likely hit 5 more three pointers in rapid order.

Does anyone believe you? Do you even believe yourself? That's ridiculous.

To answer your question----Yes

I'm sorry if I couldn't remember the exact wording used for a few minutes during a game that took place over a month ago. A lot has happened in my life over the past month, and I suspect its the same for you.

Actually, a degree of apology to Dave as it appears the quote I was pretty sure I remembered for the most part was Pat's---"No, seriously though, if Sanborn gets hot I like Ramapo's chances better than North Central. I mean the 15 point advantage is huge right now, but....."

You mean to tell me by that statement that despite the 15 point disadvantage that you didn't think Ramapo was going to come back and win the game? Come on Pat! The real question seems to be does anyone believe thats not what you meant?

And as far as my saying Dave expected Sanborn to hit 5 more shots, equal of course to the then 15 point lead, call me crazy, but I think by making the statement in that manner, that is exactly what he expected. And, I think most people would say the same thing. Why would there be talk of Sanborn heating up and then the statement "thats five shots" be made if it wasn't the expectation that making those 5 shots is exactly what would be forthcoming in fairly short order?

PC---"I like Ramapo's chanbes better than North Central."
DM---"Thats five shots."

Are you seriously telling me that by the above statements that both you and Dave didn't expect Ramapo to come back and erase that 15 point deficit, and that the further expectation was that Sanborn would likely be the player most responsible for the comeback by heating up and probably making 5 (more) threes? Really? 
What else could you have meant?
How can you deny that you thought Ramapo was the better team?

[Pat Coleman]

Are you seriously telling me that by the above statements that both you and Dave didn't expect Ramapo to come back and erase that 15 point deficit, and that the further expectation was that Sanborn would likely be the player most responsible for the comeback by heating up and probably making 5 (more) threes? Really? 
What else could you have meant?
How can you deny that you thought Ramapo was the better team?

IF SANBORN GETS HOT.

We saw him play in that tournament last year, you didn't.

I do not tolerate people twisting my words. Using bold and underline doesn't change what I said. Ramapo had a ton of room to get better and come back and win that game in the final 18 minutes. I didn't think Ramapo was better than North Central, Mark, I thought Ramapo was better than they had played so far. They did eventually cut the lead to four, so I'm pretty sure I was proven right.

[Pat Coleman]

How can you deny that you thought Ramapo was the better team?

Vote received at Mon, Dec 17, 2012 8:11 PM EST
Nomination    Rank    
North Central (Ill.)    1st    
Va. Wesleyan    2nd    
Middlebury    3rd    
St. Thomas (Minn.)    4th    
Wis.-Stevens Point    5th
Wis.-Whitewater    6th    
Whitworth    7th    
Washington (Mo.)    8th    
Ramapo    9th    
Ill. Wesleyan    10th