MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[iwu70]

Q, Happy Birthday -- and many happy returns.  We do appreciate all your informative posts in this room.  Was good to see you @The Shirk last weekend, for opening night.  Hope you make it back for the Wash U game.  That's going to be a good one, always a good measure of where the two elite programs are for this season.

AndOne, pretty much agree with you on the Grinnell Coach and the antics of "the system."  Guess they are getting wins, but I just find the whole thing, the whole format, pretty bizarre. 

IWU men head to Iowa this weekend for games with Coe and Loras.  IWU Women are home @The Shirk vs. Cornell and then a really good test against WI-SP.  Great to see the basketball season underway. 

IWU70

[Gregory Sager]

Greg,

To that I'd say he took 70 shots. SEVENTY! And while he made a fabulous 35 of them, he likewise missed 35 shots. I'll bet two things. First, if he only took, lets say 60 shots, he still would have been considered to have been following his coach's "orders." And second, that chances are good that someone was more open than he was on some of those 35 misses he had. Someone he could have passed to without taking yet another shot.
You can follow orders without going overboard in so doing, and without almost total disregard for the other players on the floor who are supposed to be your TEAMmates. Coach Arseneault Unsportsmanlike is gonna sit him if he only takes 60 shots and passes the ball a little more often? I think not.

You have no way of knowing if he would've been following Arseneault's orders if he had shot 60 attempts instead of 70, Mark. In fact, all indications are that the opposite is true. Arseneault wanted Jack Taylor to break the NCAA scoring record. That means taking as many shots as possible. I fail to see how you can make some sort of distinction between 60 and 70 shots as being the benchmark for selfishness.

As for his not passing to open teammates, again, that was on Arseneault's orders. Taylor was even told not to get back on defense, so the Pioneers played 4-on-5 when Crossroads got the ball over the midline. He simply waited at the arc for either a steal and a pass or for a long inbounds pass following a Crossroads make.

This whole thing was an Arseneault set-up. Jack Taylor simply followed his coach's orders. To castigate Taylor for doing what a basketball player is supposed to do -- obey his coach's instructions -- is completely unfair.

[AndOne]

Then either the coach should be fired for being a complete ass, or the whole rest of the team should quit because the idiot coach won't let them really play basketball. All he'll evidently let them do is pass to Taylor, a guy that it sounds like isn't even required to play defense.
The "system" itself is not the problem. Its the classless way Grinnell plays it, and its an embarrassment to the coach, the school, and the team concept of the game of basketball in general. 

And i don't agree that what a basketball player is supposed to do is to obey his coach's instructions. If the coach orders a player to intentionally hurt an opponent to put him out of the game, is the player supposed to follow instructions?
Lastly, even in a situation in which no rules are being broken, but unsportsmanlike play is being condoned and exhibited by almost each word and action, isn't it time where the player says "ok coach, we're up by 60, I've taken 60 shots, and I have 100+ points, I think we should......... (put the subs in, use more of the clock, or whatever)."

[Greek Tragedy]

What Greg described above is The System at Grinnell to a "T". The only difference is that its usually not the same player not defending. They usually play 5 vs 4 on the defensive end. Back when I started seeing Grinnell play, they had a very nice trio of players in Bobby Long, John Grotberg and the coach's kid, Dave Jr. The big hoopla, IMO, isn't the scoreline, it's feeding ONE player the whole game. Even those star players didn't play 35+ minutes a game (ok, I didn't actually check). I've seen Grinnell blow 25-35 point leads with ease. It doesn't bother me that they won by 45-50 points. It bothers me that they went against the System's principles and fed the same guy all night. They routinely pass up easy shots and layups for contested 3s. If you are anywhere near a game Grinnell plays in, I encourage everyone to attend a game. Its both entertaining and a train wreck at the same time.

[realist]

If you checked with the Grinnell administration one would probably find that they are satisfied with the coach, and that he did exactly what they wanted.  Grinnell has gotten more publicity from these scoring binges than most D3 schools get in a lifetime.  It strikes me that the objective was to set the scoring record, and thereby get mentioned on ESPN, and talk shows etc. 
Now you may feel that this is a questionable tactic, but there are probably more people that know about Grinnell, and Grinnell basketball than know about any other D3 program. 
Grinnell got exactly what it wanted, and a reasonable guess would be it will happen again.

[Gregory Sager]

Then either the coach should be fired for being a complete ass, or the whole rest of the team should quit because the idiot coach won't let them really play basketball. All he'll evidently let them do is pass to Taylor, a guy that it sounds like isn't even required to play defense.
The "system" itself is not the problem. Its the classless way Grinnell plays it, and its an embarrassment to the coach, the school, and the team concept of the game of basketball in general.

I completely agree. And I'm glad that you added that you have no objection to the System per se, because otherwise it could lead to an awkward moment the next time that you bump into Michelle Roof in the hangar.

And i don't agree that what a basketball player is supposed to do is to obey his coach's instructions. If the coach orders a player to intentionally hurt an opponent to put him out of the game, is the player supposed to follow instructions?

That's not a legitimate analogy. There's a massive difference between obeying a coach who tells you to shoot until your arms fall off, and obeying a coach who tells you to injure an opponent.

Lastly, even in a situation in which no rules are being broken, but unsportsmanlike play is being condoned and exhibited by almost each word and action, isn't it time where the player says "ok coach, we're up by 60, I've taken 60 shots, and I have 100+ points, I think we should......... (put the subs in, use more of the clock, or whatever)."

Wow. You're advocating player insurrection? Seriously, though, how many college basketball coaches do you know who would take kindly to being second-guessed by a player, especially in a game situation? How would Todd Raridon handle having his game strategy challenged in a timeout huddle by one of the Cardinals? How would Jerry Schmutte handle it? (I probably shouldn't ask, because if there's any basketball player whom I can picture daring to cross his coach like that, it's you, Mark. )

[AndOne]

Greg,

1. Of course I have no objection to the "System" I think it can be a lot of fun---to watch and probably to play. Its how you play it that matters. And Michelle and almost every other coach has too much class to ever turn her style of "system" play into the aborted version displayed by the Grinnell coach.

2. It is a legitimate analogy. You said "what a basketball player is supposed to do......obey his coach's instructions. You didn't qualify your statement in any way, shape, or form. Therefore the inference is that it is always the player's duty to obey the coach.

3. Neither Todd Raridon nor Gerry Schmutte would stoop to giving instructions designed to humiliate an opponent so the question of insurrection would never arise. 

[AndOne]

If you checked with the Grinnell administration one would probably find that they are satisfied with the coach, and that he did exactly what they wanted.  Grinnell has gotten more publicity from these scoring binges than most D3 schools get in a lifetime.  It strikes me that the objective was to set the scoring record, and thereby get mentioned on ESPN, and talk shows etc. 
Now you may feel that this is a questionable tactic, but there are probably more people that know about Grinnell, and Grinnell basketball than know about any other D3 program. 
Grinnell got exactly what it wanted, and a reasonable guess would be it will happen again.

Unfortunately, you're probably right on all counts.        

[realist]

If you checked with the Grinnell administration one would probably find that they are satisfied with the coach, and that he did exactly what they wanted.  Grinnell has gotten more publicity from these scoring binges than most D3 schools get in a lifetime.  It strikes me that the objective was to set the scoring record, and thereby get mentioned on ESPN, and talk shows etc. 
Now you may feel that this is a questionable tactic, but there are probably more people that know about Grinnell, and Grinnell basketball than know about any other D3 program. 
Grinnell got exactly what it wanted, and a reasonable guess would be it will happen again.

Unfortunately, you're probably right on all counts.        

About the only thing that surprises me about this entire episode is that no one has filed "bullying" charges.  So far!

[Titan Q]

I would like to wish a very Happy Birthday to our very own, Titan Q! Thanks for all of your hard work and support for D3 athletics, especially the CCIW.

Thanks!!  I appreciate it!!

[keith45]

Greg,

1. Of course I have no objection to the "System" I think it can be a lot of fun---to watch and probably to play. Its how you play it that matters. And Michelle and almost every other coach has too much class to ever turn her style of "system" play into the aborted version displayed by the Grinnell coach.

2. It is a legitimate analogy. You said "what a basketball player is supposed to do......obey his coach's instructions. You didn't qualify your statement in any way, shape, or form. Therefore the inference is that it is always the player's duty to obey the coach.

3. Neither Todd Raridon nor Gerry Schmutte would stoop to giving instructions designed to humiliate an opponent so the question of insurrection would never arise. 

1. Roof has pulled out of the "system" during the end of a blowout and even played a zone to slow down the score (I think I saw it last season in a blowout in the early season tip off tourney
2. Cmon, we all know the point that was being illustrated
3. This is tricky....has Rairdon or any other coach called a timeout during a blow out and called for a specific set play? I would say yes...and could that be considered humiliation? Depends on what side of the scoreboard you are on.

[AndOne]

Greg,

1. Of course I have no objection to the "System" I think it can be a lot of fun---to watch and probably to play. Its how you play it that matters. And Michelle and almost every other coach has too much class to ever turn her style of "system" play into the aborted version displayed by the Grinnell coach.

2. It is a legitimate analogy. You said "what a basketball player is supposed to do......obey his coach's instructions. You didn't qualify your statement in any way, shape, or form. Therefore the inference is that it is always the player's duty to obey the coach.

3. Neither Todd Raridon nor Gerry Schmutte would stoop to giving instructions designed to humiliate an opponent so the question of insurrection would never arise. 

1. Roof has pulled out of the "system" during the end of a blowout and even played a zone to slow down the score (I think I saw it last season in a blowout in the early season tip off tourney
2. Cmon, we all know the point that was being illustrated
3. This is tricky....has Rairdon or any other coach called a timeout during a blow out and called for a specific set play? I would say yes...and could that be considered humiliation? Depends on what side of the scoreboard you are on.

Keith--

With regard to your point #3 above--Do you have any specific examples/proof of this happening or is it just supposition on your part?
If you have specific, documented evidence, lets have it. 
If not, your statement is libelous and warrants a retraction. 
It depends on what side of the truth you're on, not, as you said, what side of the scoreboard.   

[keith45]

Greg,

1. Of course I have no objection to the "System" I think it can be a lot of fun---to watch and probably to play. Its how you play it that matters. And Michelle and almost every other coach has too much class to ever turn her style of "system" play into the aborted version displayed by the Grinnell coach.

2. It is a legitimate analogy. You said "what a basketball player is supposed to do......obey his coach's instructions. You didn't qualify your statement in any way, shape, or form. Therefore the inference is that it is always the player's duty to obey the coach.

3. Neither Todd Raridon nor Gerry Schmutte would stoop to giving instructions designed to humiliate an opponent so the question of insurrection would never arise. 

1. Roof has pulled out of the "system" during the end of a blowout and even played a zone to slow down the score (I think I saw it last season in a blowout in the early season tip off tourney
2. Cmon, we all know the point that was being illustrated
3. This is tricky....has Rairdon or any other coach called a timeout during a blow out and called for a specific set play? I would say yes...and could that be considered humiliation? Depends on what side of the scoreboard you are on.

Keith--

With regard to your point #3 above--Do you have any specific examples/proof of this happening or is it just supposition on your part?
If you have specific, documented evidence, lets have it. 
If not, your statement is libelous and warrants a retraction. 
It depends on what side of the truth you're on, not, as you said, what side of the scoreboard.   

hahaha, I didnt realize I was in court. So since I was lucky/smart enough to say any other coach, I can verify that in my playing day, my coach called a timeout during a game when we were up by 20 in the first half (lead was 30 and we let them go on a 10-0 run in about 2 minutes), to coach us on sloppy play and he called a specific play that led to a 3 pointer. My opinion is that he was trying to focus us and not add humiliation to our opponent but since I was not in his mind, I cant say. So if a coach does what I just described my coach doing, what would your thoughts be?

[bopol]

RE: Grinnell.

Everyone knows what they are getting if they schedule Grinnell.  Personally, the system (especially in "let's set a record" mode) is pretty darn beatable.  Just set up the offense so you take advantage of the 5 on 4 and turn it into 4 on 3's through passing and get someone hustling their butt back on D before the offensive shot is even taken.  If Taylor is taking all the shots, I make sure he pays a price (foul him hard once or twice and see if that disrupts his game and then always have a hand in his face or make sure he hears footsteps).

Grinnell doesn't play defense so you can go deep on your bench for guards that'll chase around their players.  As long as they don't dribble off their legs when they aren't covered, anyone can score on Grinnell.  Play 3 or 4 guards and have a big to rebound (provided you have one).

The fact is the teams that play them like this are willing to come in and play the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters.  If he sets a record, we'll be on SportsCenter. 

As for what everyone other Grinnell player gets, well, a win.  When I played soccer in particular, my personal measure was +/-.  I didn't let the other team score.  If I did that, I was happy.  I'm sure many Grinnell players are happy to be part of a winning team and that's enough for many. 

[AndOne]

Greg,

1. Of course I have no objection to the "System" I think it can be a lot of fun---to watch and probably to play. Its how you play it that matters. And Michelle and almost every other coach has too much class to ever turn her style of "system" play into the aborted version displayed by the Grinnell coach.

2. It is a legitimate analogy. You said "what a basketball player is supposed to do......obey his coach's instructions. You didn't qualify your statement in any way, shape, or form. Therefore the inference is that it is always the player's duty to obey the coach.

3. Neither Todd Raridon nor Gerry Schmutte would stoop to giving instructions designed to humiliate an opponent so the question of insurrection would never arise. 

1. Roof has pulled out of the "system" during the end of a blowout and even played a zone to slow down the score (I think I saw it last season in a blowout in the early season tip off tourney
2. Cmon, we all know the point that was being illustrated
3. This is tricky....has Rairdon or any other coach called a timeout during a blow out and called for a specific set play? I would say yes...and could that be considered humiliation? Depends on what side of the scoreboard you are on.

Keith--

With regard to your point #3 above--Do you have any specific examples/proof of this happening or is it just supposition on your part?
If you have specific, documented evidence, lets have it. 
If not, your statement is libelous and warrants a retraction. 
It depends on what side of the truth you're on, not, as you said, what side of the scoreboard.   

hahaha, I didnt realize I was in court. So since I was lucky/smart enough to say any other coach, I can verify that in my playing day, my coach called a timeout during a game when we were up by 20 in the first half (lead was 30 and we let them go on a 10-0 run in about 2 minutes), to coach us on sloppy play and he called a specific play that led to a 3 pointer. My opinion is that he was trying to focus us and not add humiliation to our opponent but since I was not in his mind, I cant say. So if a coach does what I just described my coach doing, what would your thoughts be?

Keith,

When you step into a any realm involving evidence, the old insurance investigator testifying in court cases comes out in me so, yes, you were in court. 

My thoughts on the situation you described are:

1. You had a 30 point lead, but suddenly its down to 20 (and still in the 1st half). Your coach needed you to re-focus.
2. I would have thought his time out lecture would have been about playing tighter defense rather than setting up a 3 ball play.
3. I do not think your coach's specific offensive play was designed to humiliate your opponent, but rather to snap your team out of the funk they were in.
4. Number 3 above is especially true if he didn't keep pouring it on once you got the lead back up to 30-40, but instead substituted freely, didn't play the team star until only around 5 minutes remained, and especially did not pull any grandstand plays to belittle either your opponent or the game.