MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

The recruiting issue is a red herring.  You can try to justify it all you want, but there is no evidence at all that a Chicago area Catholic school would suddenly dominate if they were admitted to the CCIW.

It's not a red herring at all. It's an unproven assertion, which is a completely different thing altogether. As I said before to NCF, it might not be true. Or it might be. We have no way of knowing at this point.

And the issue doesn't exist in a vacuum, either. As I said before, any number of factors enter into athletic dominance. The reason why Benedictine is the primary focus of this issue -- it's the school that was bruited when this subject has come up in my conversations with CCIW administrators -- is because BU has a lot going for it that would make it a solid CCIW competitor: Top-notch facilities, great location, etc. Even the peripherals regarding BU athletics are impressive, with regard to their use of online media, for example.

  Any advantage that might be gained by being a Catholic school in the league would be countered for the same reason that these schools don't dominate now.

You've missed the point regarding the importance of league affiliation. Again, membership in the CCIW goes a long way towards being a dominant athletic power in these parts. Certain programs in the other leagues do very well -- Dominican has had a nationally-competitive run in men's and women's soccer, Concordia IL is very solid at baseball, etc. -- but in terms of consistent, across-the-board success, it's the CCIW schools that have it.

Most players aren't Catholic;

What, have you been taking religious surveys at ballgames?

those that may seek a Catholic higher education and are talented at a particular sport may still consider other schools (St. Xavier, Lewis, Cardinal Stritch, Dominican).  Now, I believe that, if an argument trying to justify a particular action doesn't make sense, then there might be something else going on.

The argument makes plenty of hypothetical sense. Whether it contains enough empirical evidence is difficult to determine.

Now, after saying that it's not a recruiting issue, you then go onto a bit about how schools have a right to exclude those who don't believe as they do.  You have posted a link about how Wheaton basically didn't know how to deal with a Catholic teaching in their philosophy department, talk about the First Amendment and all that.  Now, that's just weird.  If it's truly recruiting issue, why are you trying to justify the argument by posting that Wheaton doesn't like the Catholics teaching their students?

You're mixing up two distinctly different issues here. Pointing out the exclusionary thing in terms of school-specific policies was to counteract your argument that exclusion equals bigotry, tout court. Wheaton is exclusivist; that doesn't mean that it's bigoted.

The part with which you're mixing that up:

Now, after saying that it's not a recruiting issue

... you've got backwards. I did say that it's a recruiting issue. That's all I've ever said here.

The CCIW is not exclusivist with regard to religion. As I said earlier, the basic fact that the league consists of eight institutions that cover the whole gamut with regard to secular vs. religious in terms of orientation disproves any claim that the conference leadership as a whole cares about religion in and of itself with regard to CCIW membership.

Then you take it a step farther and say that the CCIW schools play Catholic schools, so they couldn't possibly be bigoted, which doesn't sound at all like the "I have a black friend, so I'm not racist" views that have and still exist today.  That isn't a good supporting point at all.

You're bringing your own biases to the reading of that point. I was not attempting to defend CCIW schools along the "I have a black friend, so I'm not racist" line of thinking. I brought up the point of CCIW schools having players and coaches with Catholic high school backgrounds because it's germane to one of the basic points here: Chicagoland has lots of very athletically successful Catholic high schools; CCIW schools would like to continue successfully mining those Catholic high schools for recruits; introducing a Catholic college as a CCIW peer would make that more difficult for the current members.

So, at the end, your argument is that it is a recruiting issue, but even if it weren't, it would be ok if the administrations of some CCIW schools wanted to be bigoted because that's their right.

No. Again, exclusivity is not bigotry. Colleges have the right to set their own criteria for admission or hiring, and refusing to open that process to anyone who applies is not bigotry.

But, again, the paragraph above this one does not apply to the CCIW as a whole, because the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin does not have doctrinal criteria as part of the membership selection process.

And you haven't remotely begun to justify the recruiting issue in my mind.  It simply makes no sense and I'm surprised you are trying to make it.

It makes plenty of sense as a hypothesis. But, as I've said a number of times already, it's an unproven hypothesis. It's certainly open to debate at this point.

Without that argument, I end up with the bigoted viewpoint, which is just too bad in this day and age.

... and that conclusion, I think, is what simply makes no sense and I'm surprised you are trying to make it.

Bopol, I'm just saying that what you wrote sounds like you were accusing Gregory of being bigoted himself. Slow down and read.

I read it.  Excluding a school based on religious affiliation is bigoted, especially given the lame excuses he heard.  Now, Greg won't say if he agrees or disagrees with that.  So, it might be that he is bigoted.

Do stop. I'd hate to have to revoke your posting privileges.

Well, that'd be a good way to make sure no one calls out any sort of prejudices, just silence the debate.

Word of advice: If Pat gives you a warning, you're not going to help your cause by accusing him of being a censor.

[AO]

You guys have nothing to worry about.  According to those in the know, St. Thomas is already scooping up all the talented Catholic football players from the Chicago area. 

[bopol]

The recruiting issue is a red herring.  You can try to justify it all you want, but there is no evidence at all that a Chicago area Catholic school would suddenly dominate if they were admitted to the CCIW.

It's not a red herring at all. It's an unproven assertion, which is a completely different thing altogether. As I said before to NCF, it might not be true. Or it might be. We have no way of knowing at this point.

If you are going to make a creed-based assertion, it should have some basis in reality.  But I can't think of a single Catholic institution that dominates any aspect of D3 athletics.  By your logic, John Carroll would have a clear advantage in Ohio, but it doesn't.  Mount Union dominates football (though JCU has good teams) and I don't think JCU has made the men's basketball tournament in the last 4 or 5 years.  Amherst isn't a Catholic school.  Neither is Whitewater or Wash U.   Or Calvin, Hope or Wooster. 

So, while you claim that you have no way of knowing at this point, I assert there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary from all around the country that you are choosing to ignore.

And the issue doesn't exist in a vacuum, either. As I said before, any number of factors enter into athletic dominance. The reason why Benedictine is the primary focus of this issue -- it's the school that was bruited when this subject has come up in my conversations with CCIW administrators -- is because BU has a lot going for it that would make it a solid CCIW competitor: Top-notch facilities, great location, etc. Even the peripherals regarding BU athletics are impressive, with regard to their use of online media, for example.

None of this applies to religion affiliation, so the argument is changing.  You said that the administrators were concerned because a Catholic institution would have an advantage in recruiting.  Now it's changing that somehow a particular school (Benedictine) would be too good (is that the argument?) for the CCIW.  If it's that, then it has nothing to do with religious affiliation and you were foolish to bring up the topic.

  Any advantage that might be gained by being a Catholic school in the league would be countered for the same reason that these schools don't dominate now.

You've missed the point regarding the importance of league affiliation. Again, membership in the CCIW goes a long way towards being a dominant athletic power in these parts. Certain programs in the other leagues do very well -- Dominican has had a nationally-competitive run in men's and women's soccer, Concordia IL is very solid at baseball, etc. -- but in terms of consistent, across-the-board success, it's the CCIW schools that have it.

CCIW affiliation hasn't helped North Park lately nor Millikin.  I agree it would help, but I don't think it would help nearly as much as you say.

Most players aren't Catholic;

What, have you been taking religious surveys at ballgames?

I based it on the general population, which is about 24% of Americans.

those that may seek a Catholic higher education and are talented at a particular sport may still consider other schools (St. Xavier, Lewis, Cardinal Stritch, Dominican).  Now, I believe that, if an argument trying to justify a particular action doesn't make sense, then there might be something else going on.

The argument makes plenty of hypothetical sense. Whether it contains enough empirical evidence is difficult to determine.

Now, after saying that it's not a recruiting issue, you then go onto a bit about how schools have a right to exclude those who don't believe as they do.  You have posted a link about how Wheaton basically didn't know how to deal with a Catholic teaching in their philosophy department, talk about the First Amendment and all that.  Now, that's just weird.  If it's truly recruiting issue, why are you trying to justify the argument by posting that Wheaton doesn't like the Catholics teaching their students?

You're mixing up two distinctly different issues here. Pointing out the exclusionary thing in terms of school-specific policies was to counteract your argument that exclusion equals bigotry, tout court. Wheaton is exclusivist; that doesn't mean that it's bigoted.

Well, I wasn't the one putting in links of Catholic faculty not being welcome at Wheaton.  You were.  Since that has nothing to do with athletic recruiting, I was suspicious of why you would put that in. 

The part with which you're mixing that up:

Now, after saying that it's not a recruiting issue

... you've got backwards. I did say that it's a recruiting issue. That's all I've ever said here.

Right, mistake on my part.  I realize you say it is a recruiting issue an misspoke here.

The CCIW is not exclusivist with regard to religion. As I said earlier, the basic fact that the league consists of eight institutions that cover the whole gamut with regard to secular vs. religious in terms of orientation disproves any claim that the conference leadership as a whole cares about religion in and of itself with regard to CCIW membership.

Then why are administrators particularly worried about a Catholic college in particular and defending it with such weak arguments.

Then you take it a step farther and say that the CCIW schools play Catholic schools, so they couldn't possibly be bigoted, which doesn't sound at all like the "I have a black friend, so I'm not racist" views that have and still exist today.  That isn't a good supporting point at all.

You're bringing your own biases to the reading of that point. I was not attempting to defend CCIW schools along the "I have a black friend, so I'm not racist" line of thinking. I brought up the point of CCIW schools having players and coaches with Catholic high school backgrounds because it's germane to one of the basic points here: Chicagoland has lots of very athletically successful Catholic high schools; CCIW schools would like to continue successfully mining those Catholic high schools for recruits; introducing a Catholic college as a CCIW peer would make that more difficult for the current members.

Any new school in the CCIW will make it harder to recruit players from Catholic high schools.  Why are administrators worried about a Catholic school in particular, as there is no evidence that this is a problem anywhere in the country?

So, at the end, your argument is that it is a recruiting issue, but even if it weren't, it would be ok if the administrations of some CCIW schools wanted to be bigoted because that's their right.

No. Again, exclusivity is not bigotry. Colleges have the right to set their own criteria for admission or hiring, and refusing to open that process to anyone who applies is not bigotry.

But, again, the paragraph above this one does not apply to the CCIW as a whole, because the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin does not have doctrinal criteria as part of the membership selection process.

Then why do you keep introducing it to the argument?  I mean, if it isn't a problem, why are you the one posting links about Wheaton and their troubles with the Catholic instructors.  I didn't post it.  You did.  Either it had something to do with your argument (i.e., a certain anti-Catholic bias at certain CCIW institutions) or you shouldn't have put it in the post.  I assumed the former and now you're claiming I'm drawing conclusions based on things you brought into the discussion. 

And you haven't remotely begun to justify the recruiting issue in my mind.  It simply makes no sense and I'm surprised you are trying to make it.

It makes plenty of sense as a hypothesis. But, as I've said a number of times already, it's an unproven hypothesis. It's certainly open to debate at this point.

Not only is it unproven, but there is fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary throughout the country.

Without that argument, I end up with the bigoted viewpoint, which is just too bad in this day and age.

... and that conclusion, I think, is what simply makes no sense and I'm surprised you are trying to make it.

You said yourself that administrators have expressed concern about a Catholic institution joining the CCIW, but their justification doesn't really make sense.  You're repeating the argument and say it's an unproven assertion, but it's not even that.  There is sufficient evidence that it isn't true.  Then you post links about Wheaton and their trouble with Catholic instructors and somehow you're surprised that I am just going that next logical step and thinking that maybe, just maybe, bigotry might be involved.  Really, Greg, you have to see that it is a distinct possibility based on what you've said.

Bopol, I'm just saying that what you wrote sounds like you were accusing Gregory of being bigoted himself. Slow down and read.

I read it.  Excluding a school based on religious affiliation is bigoted, especially given the lame excuses he heard.  Now, Greg won't say if he agrees or disagrees with that.  So, it might be that he is bigoted.

Do stop. I'd hate to have to revoke your posting privileges.

Well, that'd be a good way to make sure no one calls out any sort of prejudices, just silence the debate.

Word of advice: If Pat gives you a warning, you're not going to help your cause by accusing him of being a censor.

Well, if he kicks me out for pointing out what looks like bigotry, then I don't need to be here anyway. 

You know, if the argument makes so much sense to you, why don't you name the administrators that are so concerned with a Catholic institution joining the CCIW?

[Pat Coleman]

I know you seem to have a problem reading the basics in this discussion, but I don't have a problem with you pointing it out. It's when you accuse the messenger of it, that's the problem.

Thanks for reading and understanding.

[veterancciwfan]

From what I know about CCIW history, Greg has a very valid point about perceived recruiting concerns. If my memory has not failed me (and it's not as good as it was 20 years ago!) many years ago (can't give a number), the CCIW presidents were considering adding, as I remember, at least two of the following schools to the league: DePauw, Wabash, Wash. U. and Chicago. The idea was dropped mainly because the Chicago area CCIW schools did not want to give DePauw (especially) greater recruiting possibilities/opportunities (student athletes in particular but all students in general) in the student-rich Chicago suburbs. So the idea was abandoned by the Presidents. The time period for this may have been (can't be certain) after DePauw had just received a $120 million gift from Eli Lilly which DePauw used to drastically increase need-based scholarships for all potential DePauw students. That's how I remember that this issue played out. As I remember, Millikin, IWU, and Augie thought it might be a good idea but the other 5 league schools didn't agree.

[Gregory Sager]

I hope to make this my last two posts on this topic ... to which most of you will likely respond thus:

The recruiting issue is a red herring.  You can try to justify it all you want, but there is no evidence at all that a Chicago area Catholic school would suddenly dominate if they were admitted to the CCIW.

It's not a red herring at all. It's an unproven assertion, which is a completely different thing altogether. As I said before to NCF, it might not be true. Or it might be. We have no way of knowing at this point.

If you are going to make a creed-based assertion, it should have some basis in reality.  But I can't think of a single Catholic institution that dominates any aspect of D3 athletics.  By your logic, John Carroll would have a clear advantage in Ohio, but it doesn't.  Mount Union dominates football (though JCU has good teams) and I don't think JCU has made the men's basketball tournament in the last 4 or 5 years.  Amherst isn't a Catholic school.  Neither is Whitewater or Wash U.   Or Calvin, Hope or Wooster.

Irrelevant. None of those schools are in the CCIW, and none of them are focused upon recruiting Chicagoland student-athletes.

The basic facts at issue are Chicagoland religious demographics and the presence of two outstanding local parochial high-school leagues. The combined population of Chicagoland (defined by the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce as Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, and Will counties) is roughly eight million. Approximately three million Chicagolanders are Catholic, so Catholics constitute about 38% of the Chicagoland population. Those are very different numbers than is the case in the areas represented by those other schools you mentioned. Above and beyond that is the issue of the ESCC and the CCL in and of themselves.

So, while you claim that you have no way of knowing at this point, I assert there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary from all around the country that you are choosing to ignore.

I chose to ignore it because it's not germane to the topic at hand, as I indicated above.

And the issue doesn't exist in a vacuum, either. As I said before, any number of factors enter into athletic dominance. The reason why Benedictine is the primary focus of this issue -- it's the school that was bruited when this subject has come up in my conversations with CCIW administrators -- is because BU has a lot going for it that would make it a solid CCIW competitor: Top-notch facilities, great location, etc. Even the peripherals regarding BU athletics are impressive, with regard to their use of online media, for example.

None of this applies to religion affiliation, so the argument is changing.  You said that the administrators were concerned because a Catholic institution would have an advantage in recruiting.  Now it's changing that somehow a particular school (Benedictine) would be too good (is that the argument?) for the CCIW.  If it's that, then it has nothing to do with religious affiliation and you were foolish to bring up the topic.

Wow, this response really makes no sense at all.

I said that there are other factors besides religious affiliation that enter into what makes a school good at sports, a fact that should be obvious to everyone. But religious affiliation can be a pertinent factor. It's a bigger factor for some schools (Calvin leaps to mind) than others, depending upon the school's affiliation, the school's admissions practices (which includes faith-based scholarships), and whether or not the denomination with which the school is affiliated has either a large population in the school's admissions target area or runs high schools that can act as feeder schools to the college in question, or both.

Benedictine already has some favorable factors with regard to athletics, as I mentioned. According to the argument as it has been stated by the people with whom I've spoken, the school's Catholicism would be one more favorable factor if it moved to the CCIW, because it would have no peer in that regard.

(I should mention that I've heard over the past couple of days from someone who works for the administration of a Catholic college other than Benedictine that he, too, has heard this about the CCIW. So, even though BU's the primary case study here, it's not just about the Bennies.)

Oh, and just for the record, I didn't bring up the topic. AndOne gets all the credit for that.

[Gregory Sager]

  Any advantage that might be gained by being a Catholic school in the league would be countered for the same reason that these schools don't dominate now.

You've missed the point regarding the importance of league affiliation. Again, membership in the CCIW goes a long way towards being a dominant athletic power in these parts. Certain programs in the other leagues do very well -- Dominican has had a nationally-competitive run in men's and women's soccer, Concordia IL is very solid at baseball, etc. -- but in terms of consistent, across-the-board success, it's the CCIW schools that have it.

CCIW affiliation hasn't helped North Park lately nor Millikin.  I agree it would help, but I don't think it would help nearly as much as you say.

It hasn't helped NPU, Millikin, or Elmhurst in-house, in that those schools tend to be the laggards in the CCIW standings in most sports. But it certainly helps those schools in the broader D3 sense. All eight CCIW schools have a recruiting advantage over NACC, MWC, SLIAC, etc., schools, and every CCIW coach worth his or her salt uses that when wooing a prospect. Occasionally, an Aurora or a Benedictine or a Lake Forest will beat out a CCIW competitor for a high-school senior athlete. But, more often than not, the CCIW school wins that fight. And, more often than not, CCIW teams beat NACC, MWC, and SLIAC teams on the playing field -- and that includes all eight CCIW schools.

In other words, you're wrong about CCIW affiliation helping neither North Park nor Millikin. It helps them a great deal. Every single NPU or MU coach will tell you that.

Most players aren't Catholic;

What, have you been taking religious surveys at ballgames?

I based it on the general population, which is about 24% of Americans.

As I said, Chicagoland's population is about 38% Catholic. That's not a majority, but it's a big enough plurality that it's conceivable that the majority of student-athletes in a given sport might be Catholic -- particularly if the CCL or ESCC is heavily represented on the various rosters. At any rate, it's a dramatic difference from the national numbers you cited.

Now, after saying that it's not a recruiting issue, you then go onto a bit about how schools have a right to exclude those who don't believe as they do.  You have posted a link about how Wheaton basically didn't know how to deal with a Catholic teaching in their philosophy department, talk about the First Amendment and all that.  Now, that's just weird.  If it's truly recruiting issue, why are you trying to justify the argument by posting that Wheaton doesn't like the Catholics teaching their students?

You're mixing up two distinctly different issues here. Pointing out the exclusionary thing in terms of school-specific policies was to counteract your argument that exclusion equals bigotry, tout court. Wheaton is exclusivist; that doesn't mean that it's bigoted.

Well, I wasn't the one putting in links of Catholic faculty not being welcome at Wheaton.  You were.  Since that has nothing to do with athletic recruiting, I was suspicious of why you would put that in.

You were making the argument that exclusivism equals bigotry. It doesn't. That's the only reason why I've mentioned Wheaton. As for the First Things article to which you're referring, that was to indicate the sympathies of Wheaton professor Alan Jacobs as part of my point about how many Wheaton folks find themselves more in sympathy with Catholic higher education than they do with secularized, so-called mainline Protestant higher education.

The CCIW is not exclusivist with regard to religion. As I said earlier, the basic fact that the league consists of eight institutions that cover the whole gamut with regard to secular vs. religious in terms of orientation disproves any claim that the conference leadership as a whole cares about religion in and of itself with regard to CCIW membership.

Then why are administrators particularly worried about a Catholic college in particular and defending it with such weak arguments.

Because, for the umpteenth time, demographics and a strong parochial-school athletic presence in Chicagoland make it worth worrying about. Whether it's worth worrying about to the point of keeping out a Catholic-college applicant to the league is an open question. And demographics and a strong parochial-school athletic presence in Chicagoland are not "weak arguments."

Without that argument, I end up with the bigoted viewpoint, which is just too bad in this day and age.

... and that conclusion, I think, is what simply makes no sense and I'm surprised you are trying to make it.

You said yourself that administrators have expressed concern about a Catholic institution joining the CCIW, but their justification doesn't really make sense.  You're repeating the argument and say it's an unproven assertion, but it's not even that.  There is sufficient evidence that it isn't true.  Then you post links about Wheaton and their trouble with Catholic instructors and somehow you're surprised that I am just going that next logical step and thinking that maybe, just maybe, bigotry might be involved.  Really, Greg, you have to see that it is a distinct possibility based on what you've said.

Your conclusions are in error. The justification makes hypothetical sense, but the hypothesis isn't really provable under normal conditions. (The only way to test the hypothesis would be to allow Benedictine into the CCIW for a trial period, and that simply isn't going to happen; I'm pretty certain that neither BU's president nor the CCIW's presidents would ever agree to that.) There is not sufficient evidence that it isn't true, because you haven't provided any; your lone attempt in this regard was to cite D3 institutions that are not Chicagoland-based and/or do not regularly recruit here. You've misstated the sequence regarding Wheaton and bigotry; you tossed the term "bigot" into the conversation as an accusation against the league's administrators in general, not at Wheaton in specific ("What you wrote was pretty bigoted, so excuse me for pointing out the obvious") at first. After that, you extracted a point from a link meant to address something else and drew a conclusion from it with which, by the way, I also don't agree (i.e., Wheaton's exclusion of Catholics from the school's faculty indicates bigotry).

I don't see bigotry here. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think that you're just plain wrong.

You know, if the argument makes so much sense to you, why don't you name the administrators that are so concerned with a Catholic institution joining the CCIW?

I am not going to break anybody's confidence in this matter in a public chatroom.

You guys have nothing to worry about.  According to those in the know, St. Thomas is already scooping up all the talented Catholic football players from the Chicago area. 

Ah, ChicagoTommie. Just when you think that the MIAC football room couldn't get any more colorful, ChicagoTommie comes along ...

From what I know about CCIW history, Greg has a very valid point about perceived recruiting concerns. If my memory has not failed me (and it's not as good as it was 20 years ago!) many years ago (can't give a number), the CCIW presidents were considering adding, as I remember, at least two of the following schools to the league: DePauw, Wabash, Wash. U. and Chicago. The idea was dropped mainly because the Chicago area CCIW schools did not want to give DePauw (especially) greater recruiting possibilities/opportunities (student athletes in particular but all students in general) in the student-rich Chicago suburbs. So the idea was abandoned by the Presidents. The time period for this may have been (can't be certain) after DePauw had just received a $120 million gift from Eli Lilly which DePauw used to drastically increase need-based scholarships for all potential DePauw students. That's how I remember that this issue played out. As I remember, Millikin, IWU, and Augie thought it might be a good idea but the other 5 league schools didn't agree.

You're correct on those points -- Eli Lilly was a DePauw grad, so the pharmaceutical giant he founded has pumped a lot of money into his alma mater over the years -- but geography also played a role. Notice that the two CCIW schools closest to DePauw didn't have an issue with adding that school, but the Chicagoland Four and Carthage did, and all that extra travel was part of the reason. (Augie seems to be an anomaly in that regard.)

Also, I don't recall Wash U and Chicago being part of any CCIW-expansion discussion, at least not since the inauguration of the UAA in 1986. Perhaps they were before that, when Wash U was an independent and Chicago was a MWC member. Those two schools were and are very comfortable in the UAA -- aside from the fact that that league contains a big gap (football) in terms of an automatic qualifier, due to a shortage of UAA schools that offer the sport. Wash U and Chicago were then, and are now, not good fits at all as potential CCIW institutions, given how very different they are in terms of structure, size, and mission from the CCIW's eight members. The UAA is the perfect place for them, although the CCIW is certainly happy to have both of them in the neighborhood as high-quality non-conference competition.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mr. Ypsi became Grandpa Ypsi last night.  Virtual cigars to everyone!

Mother and son doing well; father exhausted but euphoric.

[bbfan44]

6-7 F Gordon Behr from Wheaton Academy committed to D2 Hillsdale.  (His name came up here a while back as a potential Wheaton recruit.)

That is two "big" guys that apparently were on Wheaton's list.  Still looking for a replacement for Haynes.  Is there a third possibility on someone's list? 
Any "big's" being mentioned at North Central?

[Gregory Sager]

Mr. Ypsi became Grandpa Ypsi last night.  Virtual cigars to everyone!

Congrats, Chuck ... not virtual congrats, but real ones!

6-7 F Gordon Behr from Wheaton Academy committed to D2 Hillsdale.  (His name came up here a while back as a potential Wheaton recruit.)

That is two "big" guys that apparently were on Wheaton's list.  Still looking for a replacement for Haynes.  Is there a third possibility on someone's list? 

That's three local bigs, actually, that've considered Wheaton and then chosen to go elsewhere: Ben Carlson of Fremd (Indiana Wesleyan), Max Rothschild of UC Lab School (New Hampton Prep), and Gordon Behr of Wheaton Academy (Hillsdale).

Thing is, this is Wheaton we're talking about. Players come to Wheaton from hither and yon. Newly-Wheatonized 6'1 guard Eric Weimar from Hill-Murray School in the Twin Cities suburb of Maplewood, MN is a good example of the latter. We know now that Mike Schauer's probably not gonna get a big man from hither, but who knows whether or not he's drawn a bead on a big man or two from out there in yon?

Any "big's" being mentioned at North Central?

If there are, I'm sure that Mark has a good reason for being tight-lipped about it with regard to CCIW Chat.

[AO]

Thing is, this is Wheaton we're talking about. Players come to Wheaton from hither and yon. Newly-Wheatonized 6'1 guard Eric Weimar from Hill-Murray School in the Twin Cities suburb of Maplewood, MN is a good example of the latter. We know now that Mike Schauer's probably not gonna get a big man from hither, but who knows whether or not he's drawn a bead on a big man or two from out there in yon?

Further proof the CCIW doesn't want a Catholic school in the league.  Hill-Murray is one the top Catholic high schools in the metro, especially if you're looking for hockey players.  I'm surprised the bigots at Wheaton even bothered to consider the application once they saw the name of the school.   

[CCIW]

I think we have a case of psychological projection in play here, an attribution of undesirable characteristics of the self to the so-called "conspirators."   bopol has issues and he has found a forum to ventilate them to get the attention he so desperately needs.  No logic, no facts will assuage his fury.  Flames of folly eventually end with a vestige ashes.

[Naperick]

Mr. Ypsi became Grandpa Ypsi last night.  Virtual cigars to everyone!

Mother and son doing well; father exhausted but euphoric.

Congrats!

[magicman]

Mr. Ypsi became Grandpa Ypsi last night.  Virtual cigars to everyone!

Mother and son doing well; father exhausted but euphoric.

Did he come into this world wearing an IWU sweater, Chuck? And does he have green eyes?  Congratulations Gramps!!

My virtual cigar was a Cuban.  Good choice.

[joehakes]

Ypsi's grandkid said his first words soon after birth.  "I want to give money to IWU. In $US of course."