MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[wheels81]

I guess you're making Olson feel good about switching coasts and being so far from the warm climes of CA.

Or for winning the Walnut and Bronze two years running. Oh, and having more assists than the other two combined. It'd be hard to put two shooting guards and no point guard on the first team.

Two years running?

Well, I believe all Salem finishers actually get Walnut and Bronze (I know 3rd place gets hardware, and I assume 4th does too).  I'm not sure if that is what Pat meant, or if he just made a mistake, but in a literal sense, that is a true statement.  Of course, since he said, "the Walnut and Bronze", it makes me think he forgot about the 2005-06 Virignia Wesleyan Marlins...unfortunately I have not!

http://bearsports.wustl.edu/mensbball/FinalFour.jpg

Sort of an English vocabulary glitch here when point guard isn't expected to score
points.  Sort of park in driveways and drive on parkways..
But two years running sounds like a Forrest Gump type marathon.

[mwunder]

Of course, since he said, "the Walnut and Bronze", it makes me think he forgot about the 2005-06 Virignia Wesleyan Marlins...unfortunately I have not!

Q, it's kind of like how we Carthage fans will never forget the name "Jeff Gibbs".

[north central]

I certainly don't have all the answers, but I believe 100% in what I said about team chemistry and giving 100%. When facing a schedule containing such a number of tough opponents, I think chemistry and effort will go a long way toward building a successful season. Anybody disagree?

I don't disagree that team chemistry is vitally important.  I do think, however, that a team can have all the chemistry in the world, but if it's out-manned night in and night out, it's probably not going to do very well over the course of the season.

I'd rather have Keelan Amelianovich or Rick Harrigan or Drew Carstens or Joel Kolmodin or Ryan Knuppel or Antoine McDaniel or Jason Wiertel or Korey Coon or Bryan Crabtree or Chris Simich or Matt Nadlehoffer or Kirk Anderson, etc. first, and then figure the chemistry thing out second.  We'll go bowling as a team...or maybe get together and watch Hoosiers.


"You've got to get off the bus with the best players." - Dennie Bridges

I don't necessarily agree with Bridges---I recall a team just two years ago with 3 All-Americans that finished 3rd in the CCIW and couldn't win the inaugural conference tourney---They rallied late to play up to their potential in the NCAA, but the chemistry that season didn't match their superior talent

The 2005-06 Titans soundly defeated MWC champ Carroll in Round 1 of the NCAA tournament.  The next night, they dominated WIAC champion UW-Whitewater on the Warhawk's floor.  In Round 3, IWU defeated the #1-ranked team in the nation, 25-0 Lawrence, on their floor.  They earned a trip to the final four by beating a good Puget Sound team in the Sectional final.  In the national semifinal, the Titans led for most of the game, before falling by 2 points to the eventual national champions, Virginia Wesleyan.  The next day, they knocked off Amherst (who would go on to win the national title the next year) for 3rd place.

The Titans had a strange conference season that year, but it wasn't team chemistry that was to blame.  Afterall, the same exact group of players won the league the season before at 12-2.  In the end, the talent on that team carried them to Salem, where they just got beat by a great Virginia Wesleyan team by a bucket.

I disagree---You can't tell me that losing that many close games that year in the CCIW with all that talent had nothing to do with chemistry---They were beaten out by a very talented NCC team that had no depth and an Augie team that was upproven and unknown before the season began---The team with the best players (by far) didn't win the conference---Good chemistry also includes the coaching staff in their dealings with the players---

Bottom line regarding talent is the more talent you have the better your chances of winning. For example look back at the past NCAA d 1 champs, the team with the most NBA players usually wins.

[Titan Q]

I disagree---You can't tell me that losing that many close games that year in the CCIW with all that talent had nothing to do with chemistry---They were beaten out by a very talented NCC team that had no depth and an Augie team that was upproven and unknown before the season began---The team with the best players (by far) didn't win the conference---Good chemistry also includes the coaching staff in their dealings with the players---

You seem to be suggesting that I inferred that the team with the best players always wins and are intent on proving that wrong.  Note that I never said that.  I simply made the point that in putting a winning team together, I'd want to start with "getting off the bus with the best players", as Dennie Bridges used to always say.

The most talented team doesn't always win - we all know that.  We could all think of dozens of examples where the most talented team in a sport didn't win a given game or conference championship or playoff series, etc.. 

In 2003-04, Augustana was ranked #9 in the preseason D3Hoops.com poll.  They were loaded with seniors Drew Carstens (an All-American), Jim Thomas, Shaun Clements, and that whole crew, along with youngsters like future All-American Rick Harrigan and Jay McAdams-Thorton.  That Viking team didn't win the CCIW either.  In fact, on Senior Night in Rock Island they trailed 28-3 to a group of Illinois Wesleyan sophomores/freshmen - you might say a Titan team "that was unproven and unknown before the season began."

Did that Augustana team just not have good chemistry??  Or maybe did they just not play well in a few games...lost a few tough ones in the final minute...had a little case of "senioritis" (whatever that is)??  You said of IWU's 2005-06 team, "You can't tell me that losing that many close games that year in the CCIW with all that talent had nothing to do with chemistry."  The 2003-04 Augie Vikes lost 78-77 @ North Central and 78-77 @ IWU.  So were those close losses because of bad chemistry in Rock Island, and not because of the Cardinals buzzer beater in Naperville and Zach Freeman's 8-footer in Bloomington?

Your theory is a compelling one.  It is obviously that the nucleus of Adam Dauksas, Keelan Amelianovich, Zach Freeman, Cory Jones, Chris Jones, Jason Fisher, Matt Arnold, etc - and head coach Scott Trost...

* Won the CCIW title in 2003-04 (12-2) - good chemistry

* Went 12-2 again in 2004-05, winning another title - good chemistry

* Went to Costa Rica in August 2005, had a blast, played very well - good chemistry

* Traveled to Assembly Hall on November 3, 2005 and were tied with the Illini with 14:00 to play in the game - good chemistry

* Went 10-0 in the 2005-06 non-conference season from Nov. 18 to Dec. 30, including wins over NAIA St. Xavier, U. of Chicago, Wash U, Hanover, Sectional finalist Puget Sound, and NAIA Westmont - good chemistry

But then, in some sort of cruel twist of fate, upon returning from Santa Barbara, Illinois Wesleyan's chemistry was stripped away and the same group of IWU players and coaches went 9-5 in the league because of this.  The heart-breaking losses in the league were not because the team just didn't play well...or the other teams did...or somehow the senior group lost their edge a little bit...or started playing tight once things started to go bad.  It was because they lost their team chemistry.  Not due to the 4-19 3-pt shooting at home vs NCC...All-American Keelan Amelianovich only getting himself 5 FGA @ Elmhurst...the 21 turnovers at home vs Augie...Jordan Kemper's 5-6 3-pt, 25 point performance @ Wheaton...or Rick Harrigan's 26 points in the OT loss in Rock Island.  Not because everyone in the CCIW finally had that 2-3 zone figured out.  It was chemistry.

But we're not done yet obviously.  Fortunately for all of Titan Nation, the chemistry gods visited the senior-dominated squad on March 1, allowing the team to make a wonderful run to the Final Four (including a dominating win at WIAC champ Whitewater and a win @ #1, 25-0 Lawrence) and within a basket of the national title game.  The squad finished the season with a nice win over NESCAC champ Amherst and the kids who would win the D3 title the next year.

Interesting theory.

[petemcb]

Oooo.  You're good.  You got a gift.  (After the above thorough analysis, a line or two from Analyze This, or That, seemed appropriate.  Great movies.)  Nicely played.

[Pat Coleman]

I guess you're making Olson feel good about switching coasts and being so far from the warm climes of CA.

Or for winning the Walnut and Bronze two years running. Oh, and having more assists than the other two combined. It'd be hard to put two shooting guards and no point guard on the first team.

Pat, I think Olson is a 1st teamer, but just FYI, Kent Raymond plays point...a very different different type of point-guard than Andrew Olson obviously, but he is Wheaton's 1.

Well, it would be hard to have a point guard on the first team with a 1-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio then.

[Late nite]

I disagree---You can't tell me that losing that many close games that year in the CCIW with all that talent had nothing to do with chemistry---They were beaten out by a very talented NCC team that had no depth and an Augie team that was upproven and unknown before the season began---The team with the best players (by far) didn't win the conference---Good chemistry also includes the coaching staff in their dealings with the players---

You seem to be suggesting that I inferred that the team with the best players always wins and are intent on proving that wrong.  Note that I never said that.  I simply made the point that in putting a winning team together, I'd want to start with "getting off the bus with the best players", as Dennie Bridges used to always say.

The most talented team doesn't always win - we all know that.  We could all think of dozens of examples where the most talented team in a sport didn't win a given game or conference championship or playoff series, etc.. 

In 2003-04, Augustana was ranked #9 in the preseason D3Hoops.com poll.  They were loaded with seniors Drew Carstens (an All-American), Jim Thomas, Shaun Clements, and that whole crew, along with youngsters like future All-American Rick Harrigan and Jay McAdams-Thorton.  That Viking team didn't win the CCIW either.  In fact, on Senior Night in Rock Island they trailed 28-3 to a group of Illinois Wesleyan sophomores/freshmen - you might say a Titan team "that was unproven and unknown before the season began."

Did that Augustana team just not have good chemistry??  Or maybe did they just not play well in a few games...lost a few tough ones in the final minute...had a little case of "senioritis" (whatever that is)??  You said of IWU's 2005-06 team, "You can't tell me that losing that many close games that year in the CCIW with all that talent had nothing to do with chemistry."  The 2003-04 Augie Vikes lost 78-77 @ North Central and 78-77 @ IWU.  So were those close losses because of bad chemistry in Rock Island, and not because of the Cardinals buzzer beater in Naperville and Zach Freeman's 8-footer in Bloomington?

Your theory is a compelling one.  It is obviously that the nucleus of Adam Dauksas, Keelan Amelianovich, Zach Freeman, Cory Jones, Chris Jones, Jason Fisher, Matt Arnold, etc - and head coach Scott Trost...

* Won the CCIW title in 2003-04 (12-2) - good chemistry

* Went 12-2 again in 2004-05, winning another title - good chemistry

* Went to Costa Rica in August 2005, had a blast, played very well - good chemistry

* Traveled to Assembly Hall on November 3, 2005 and were tied with the Illini with 14:00 to play in the game - good chemistry

* Went 10-0 in the 2005-06 non-conference season from Nov. 18 to Dec. 30, including wins over NAIA St. Xavier, U. of Chicago, Wash U, Hanover, Sectional finalist Puget Sound, and NAIA Westmont - good chemistry

But then, in some sort of cruel twist of fate, upon returning from Santa Barbara, Illinois Wesleyan's chemistry was stripped away and the same group of IWU players and coaches went 9-5 in the league because of this.  The heart-breaking losses in the league were not because the team just didn't play well...or the other teams did...or somehow the senior group lost their edge a little bit...or started playing tight once things started to go bad.  It was because they lost their team chemistry.  Not due to the 4-19 3-pt shooting at home vs NCC...All-American Keelan Amelianovich only getting himself 5 FGA @ Elmhurst...the 21 turnovers at home vs Augie...Jordan Kemper's 5-6 3-pt, 25 point performance @ Wheaton...or Rick Harrigan's 26 points in the OT loss in Rock Island.  Not because everyone in the CCIW finally had that 2-3 zone figured out.  It was chemistry.

But we're not done yet obviously.  Fortunately for all of Titan Nation, the chemistry gods visited the senior-dominated squad on March 1, allowing the team to make a wonderful run to the Final Four (including a dominating win at WIAC champ Whitewater and a win @ #1, 25-0 Lawrence) and within a basket of the national title game.  The squad finished the season with a nice win over NESCAC champ Amherst and the kids who would win the D3 title the next year.

Interesting theory.

My---Aren't we sensitive?---Thanks for the trip down memory lane, but my comments were directed toward the 2005-2006 Conference season---I never said that chemistry was the ONLY reason that your beloved Titans didn't win the conference---I said that the chemistry did not match the talent during the CONFERENCE season.  You have listed many of the other factors that  also play a role.  Some of the others are attitude, motivation, hunger, teamwork, knowing your role and sharing the ball. They all play a part.  Over the course of a 4-5 month season, every team goes through a period where the chemistry is lacking.  Even the good teams.  Even your Titans.  My post also stated the IWU rallied during the NCAA and played up to theior potential.  Lighten up.


(Modified for formatting)

[Titan Q]

I guess you're making Olson feel good about switching coasts and being so far from the warm climes of CA.

Or for winning the Walnut and Bronze two years running. Oh, and having more assists than the other two combined. It'd be hard to put two shooting guards and no point guard on the first team.

Pat, I think Olson is a 1st teamer, but just FYI, Kent Raymond plays point...a very different different type of point-guard than Andrew Olson obviously, but he is Wheaton's 1.

Well, it would be hard to have a point guard on the first team with a 1-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio then.

Raymond is definitely not the "pure point-guard" type (take care of the ball, pass-first)...he is a big-time scorer.  Since the first time I saw him play, I have been comparing him to former Titan Korey Coon ('00). 

Coon's senior year stats:

22.0 ppg
2.9 rpg
52 assists/60 T.O.
.442 FG
.392 3-pt
.963 FT

Raymond's sophomore year:

22.4 ppg
4.0 rpg
84 assists/82 T.O.
.462 FG
.398 3-pt
.877

Korey Coon was a 1st Team All-American as a senior and I think by the time the dust settles, Raymond will earn those honors this year as a junior.  He's just a ton.


http://www.d3hoops.com/tow/toym00.htm
http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/menbb00.html

[wheels81]

I guess you're making Olson feel good about switching coasts and being so far from the warm climes of CA.

Or for winning the Walnut and Bronze two years running. Oh, and having more assists than the other two combined. It'd be hard to put two shooting guards and no point guard on the first team.

Pat, I think Olson is a 1st teamer, but just FYI, Kent Raymond plays point...a very different different type of point-guard than Andrew Olson obviously, but he is Wheaton's 1.

Well, it would be hard to have a point guard on the first team with a 1-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio then.

He'd probably have a few more assists if he had some one to throw it to.  He had to be the point guard and scorer all in one package.  Point guards set up and create the offense with ball handling and penetration except when he penetrated defense he took it to the hoop as that was usually his best option. Look at his FT in comparison to the others and he played in 10 fewer games.

[Gregory Sager]

I couldn't help but notice the oblique tease in the current front-page story, which discusses preseason conference polls. For those of you naughty CCIW Chat readers who bookmark this room and thereby skip the d3hoops.com front page, here's the tease: "It may not be much of a surprise to see where Augustana ranks -- at the top of the CCIW men's preseason poll -- but it's certainly interesting to see where the rest of the conference shakes out. Illinois Wesleyan isn't the only team in an unfamiliar position."

I thought that Pat might've been implying that North Park was the unnamed team in the "unfamiliar position", and it turns out that my inference was correct. The current front-page readers poll that was posted yesterday is: "Which CCIW poll result is more surprising?" The answers are: "North Park at No. 4", "Ill. Wesleyan at No. 7", "Neither are surprising", and "Both are equally surprising".

Now, on the face of it, Pat's allusion to the unfamiliarity of NPU's being picked fourth is certainly correct. It's been a long time since the preseason poll slotted NPU in the upper half of the league, although the Vikings were picked fifth during the first three years of this decade. And it's equally true that seventh is an unfamiliar position for Illinois Wesleyan. But the front-page poll is a little misleading, in that it plays to the ignorance of the people who do not follow this league.

While not every CCIW observer would've picked North Park fourth, it's probably safe to say that everyone who follows CCIW men's basketball knows going into this season that NPU is going to put a pretty competitive team on the floor. Even those who would've picked NPU lower would not say that it's a surprise that the Vikings were picked for fourth by the coaches. Of course, to those who don't follow the CCIW the relevance of the North Park men's basketball program is strictly historical rather than contemporary; the Vikings haven't been ranked in the d3hoops.com Top 25 since the eighth week of the 2000 season, and they haven't received any votes at all since the eleventh week of that season. But the current front-page readers poll provides no context regarding the recent rise of the program, including the nine-game improvement of the Vikings over the year before.

Nor should the low position of Illinois Wesleyan in the poll come as a surprise to anyone who is even remotely familiar with this league. The Titans are about to enter the second year of a rebuilding phase; it was a rebuilding phase that everyone in the league knew about coming into 2006-07, when the coaches had the Titans picked an almost unprecedentedly-low fifth, and it was a rebuilding phase that was emphasized in spades last year by Wesleyan's 11-14 record that included a 4-10, seventh-place CCIW performance. This year the Titans will have to cope with the loss of a first-team All-American and a rotation heavily salted with freshmen. Anyone who thinks that it's a surprise that the Titans are picked to repeat their seventh-place finish is someone who wasn't paying attention to what happened last season, or to the loss of Zach Freeman and the plan to install a freshman-heavy lineup this season. Again, just as with the Vikings, it's not about the actual validity of where the Titans were picked by the coaches. It's about the expectedness of it.

I'm not trying to make a federal case out of this, or anything. But just because something's unusual doesn't mean that it's a surprise. The preseason poll came out more or less the way that everyone who follows this league expected it to. Instead of manipulating the unfamiliarity with the CCIW that many front-page readers have by posting that somewhat-misleading front-page poll, why not simply spell out in a sentence or two within that cover story why NPU is expected to be much better than in the recent past and why IWU is expected to uncharacteristically struggle in 2007-08?

[Titan Q]

Spent the first half of the IWU/Wheaton football game with Bill Harris, Nate Frank, and Owen Handy.  Last night Wheaton defeated Manchester in scrimmage play by 30+.  Kent Raymond had 43 points in less than 30 minutes of action.

We may be in store for something special this year in regards to Mr. Raymond.

[MilkMan25]

I agree with Sager...It is no suprise that Wesleyan was picked as low as they were, especially with the loss of Freeman.  After last season I would pick North Park to finish above Wesleyan any day.  I dont care how many of you posters bleed green, it is pure commen sense.  North Park is more experienced this year and is dangerously athletic.  Everyone trys to be optomistic about Wesleyans young talent, and I wont doubt that, but their young talent doesnt include Keelan, Dauksas, and Freeman.  They need at least another year to prove themselves. 

And about Raymond, we may be in for something special watching Raymond, but please remember that basketball is a 5 man game, and there are not 4 other men around him that have proven themselves.  So lets not jump to conclusions about Wheaton.

[petemcb]

I don't think anyone's making any big predictions about Wheaton.  I have seen a few expressions of anticipation about what we might see out of their All-American, do everything guard who just put up 43 points in less than 30 minutes.  There are also reports of some pretty impressive things he did against D2 Lewis a week or so ago.  I'm not sure anyone's handed the CCIW crown, much less the Walnut and Bronze, to the Thunder.

[Titan Q]

I agree with Sager...It is no suprise that Wesleyan was picked as low as they were, especially with the loss of Freeman.  After last season I would pick North Park to finish above Wesleyan any day.  I dont care how many of you posters bleed green, it is pure commen sense.  North Park is more experienced this year and is dangerously athletic.  Everyone trys to be optomistic about Wesleyans young talent, and I wont doubt that, but their young talent doesnt include Keelan, Dauksas, and Freeman.  They need at least another year to prove themselves. 

And about Raymond, we may be in for something special watching Raymond, but please remember that basketball is a 5 man game, and there are not 4 other men around him that have proven themselves.  So lets not jump to conclusions about Wheaton.

1) No green bleeder has disagreeed with or questioned IWU's place in the CCIW preseason coaches poll.

2) Who jumped to conclusions about Wheaton?

[Gregory Sager]

I don't think anyone's making any big predictions about Wheaton.  I have seen a few expressions of anticipation about what we might see out of their All-American, do everything guard who just put up 43 points in less than 30 minutes.  There are also reports of some pretty impressive things he did against D2 Lewis a week or so ago.

Perhaps Raymond is simply expressing as best he knows how that he's ticked off about that whole second-team All-American thing. Bully must've forwarded him last season's stats for Andrew Olson and James Cooper.