MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[wheatonfanaddict]

Congratulations to Kent, Andy, Ben, Phil, Andrew, Jeremy, and Jacob for putting together for the delight of us all, a sweet run in the tournament. There is nothing quite like the CCIW.

[Greek Tragedy]

I really don't understand the line of thinking that attendence would improve if the NCAA had predetermined sites, like Chicago or where ever.  As mentioned before, Point had about 900 fans in Quandt when Hope and Washington U. played each other after the hosts were knocked out the night before.  How many fans would have shown up on Saturday if Ohio Wes. beat Hope?  1000?  There aren't too many places where the average attendence for HOME games is 1000.  In most cases, it's hard enough to get fans to come and support their home team, let alone some other team they most likely dont' care about or actually travel to a "nearby" site to watch their team play. I don't see the attendence jumping at all.  Obviously, the Final Four is different.

Though the best team doesn't always host, I think hosting is here to stay because of costs.  I am in the school of thought that you should be rewarded for a very good season and be able to host, though that's not always the primary criteria.

Attendence records are hardly accurate, but here's a quick view (apparently, Bethel averages 29 fans a game and no one showed up when La Crosse played their neutral site game and no one showed up the two times Point played on the neutral court!).

CCIW:  731 for home games, 343 for neutral games.
MIAC:  399/177
WIAC:  720/151
MWC:  502/239
NESCAC: 437/234

Even if we give the stats the benefit of a doubt, those are HOME games, fans that travel, what 10 minutes, to the game?  In most cases, those numbers drop considerably if those same fans have to travel 2 hours or more.  At least with a host team, you're virtually guaranteed at least one of the three games to be over 1000 (and in some cases, 2500-3000) and possibly two if the host team advances.  At a neutral site, you might get 2500 in total attendence.

[Gregory Sager]

A great article by Bryan Burwell from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday.  It reminded me of this 2001 Dave Kindred piece in Sporting News.

I'll say the same thing on CCIW Chat about the Burwell column that I said in the Tournament room in the Multi-Regional Topics room: I hated it. It has that "aw, ain't that widdle D3 tourney cute?" tone that I find cloying and condescending. Plus, it isn't original; half the time that the major media deigns to notice the D3 tourney, it results in a column that employs the exact same "the little guys are doing it all with spit and baling wire down at D3" angle that Burwell used. Wash U fan Marty Peretz accurately referred to the column in the Tournament room as a "template". The only thing worse than a condescending sportswriter is an unoriginal one. Also, as Marty and ILive4This pointed out, there were numerous inaccuracies in Burwell's column.

The caliber of basketball at the highest levels of D3 deserves some respect on its own merits. The student-athletes who play on this level work much too hard in games, practices, and in the classroom to deserve this sort of pat-on-the-head patronizing attitude from the media. Yes, D3 basketball needs the publicity ... but I don't see why its coaches, players, and teams ought to suffer the loss of their dignity at the hands of some hack sportswriter in getting it.

[markerickson]

However, Greg, there needs to be substance to compliment originality.  Mike Downey of the Chicago Tribune tries to employ humor in his column, but fails miserably.  Fred Mitchell tries the chummy-with-athletes perspective; he needs many lessons from Sid Hartman up in MN.  Sam Smith dips into the rumor mill or "what if" far too often for my liking.  The Tribune's best sports' reporter, Don Pierson, is gone.  He took the analytical approach to his columns regarding the NFL.  What a concept!

[jschreur]

Any ideas on what Raymond's chances are of getting player of the year?
It seems likely he'll be a first-team All-American...
Not making the Final Four probably doesn't help, but dropping 47 to get to the Elite Eight should...
Any thoughts?

[petemcb]

A great article by Bryan Burwell from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday.  It reminded me of this 2001 Dave Kindred piece in Sporting News.

I'll say the same thing on CCIW Chat about the Burwell column that I said in the Tournament room in the Multi-Regional Topics room: I hated it. It has that "aw, ain't that widdle D3 tourney cute?" tone that I find cloying and condescending. Plus, it isn't original; half the time that the major media deigns to notice the D3 tourney, it results in a column that employs the exact same "the little guys are doing it all with spit and baling wire down at D3" angle that Burwell used. Wash U fan Marty Peretz accurately referred to the column in the Tournament room as a "template". The only thing worse than a condescending sportswriter is an unoriginal one. Also, as Marty and ILive4This pointed out, there were numerous inaccuracies in Burwell's column.

The caliber of basketball at the highest levels of D3 deserves some respect on its own merits. The student-athletes who play on this level work much too hard in games, practices, and in the classroom to deserve this sort of pat-on-the-head patronizing attitude from the media. Yes, D3 basketball needs the publicity ... but I don't see why its coaches, players, and teams ought to suffer the loss of their dignity at the hands of some hack sportswriter in getting it.

Greg, I agree with you.  I just didn't say it that way when I expressed my appreciation to Bob for the link to the Kindred article from Sporting News, 2001.  That article did a much more creditable job of capturing the essence of D3 in a way that might have inclined someone to check it out as something more than a quaint basketball oddity.

[fcnews]

A great article by Bryan Burwell from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday.  It reminded me of this 2001 Dave Kindred piece in Sporting News.

I'll say the same thing on CCIW Chat about the Burwell column that I said in the Tournament room in the Multi-Regional Topics room: I hated it. It has that "aw, ain't that widdle D3 tourney cute?" tone that I find cloying and condescending. Plus, it isn't original; half the time that the major media deigns to notice the D3 tourney, it results in a column that employs the exact same "the little guys are doing it all with spit and baling wire down at D3" angle that Burwell used. Wash U fan Marty Peretz accurately referred to the column in the Tournament room as a "template". The only thing worse than a condescending sportswriter is an unoriginal one. Also, as Marty and ILive4This pointed out, there were numerous inaccuracies in Burwell's column.

The caliber of basketball at the highest levels of D3 deserves some respect on its own merits. The student-athletes who play on this level work much too hard in games, practices, and in the classroom to deserve this sort of pat-on-the-head patronizing attitude from the media. Yes, D3 basketball needs the publicity ... but I don't see why its coaches, players, and teams ought to suffer the loss of their dignity at the hands of some hack sportswriter in getting it.

Hack? I know this is just your opinion and it comes from someone who writes volumes every night. But, Hack? Hacks don't become feature writers at major newspapers without credentials. I'm still waiting to hear Burwell's reply from your opinions. bburwell@post-dispatch.com

Please post his response to your journalistic evaluations of his work. I'm waiting to see his response.

[fcnews]

Folks, with out major media coverage this tournament will never be anything more then the "widdle d3 event" mentioned. And, yet when coverage is given, instead of taking it for what it is worth all we do is bash it.

It brings me to the conclusion that a lot of people here on this board are just find with the way it is. Keep it pigeon holed to a point that the only news is what a few posters put on this site.

I don't beleive this is what the majority is striving for. IMHO

[Pat Coleman]

I've responded to this post elsewhere and I am not going to copy and paste my posts around the board, unlike you, but I disagree with your conclusion at its very base.

[AndOne]

A great article by Bryan Burwell from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday.  It reminded me of this 2001 Dave Kindred piece in Sporting News.

I'll say the same thing on CCIW Chat about the Burwell column that I said in the Tournament room in the Multi-Regional Topics room: I hated it. It has that "aw, ain't that widdle D3 tourney cute?" tone that I find cloying and condescending. Plus, it isn't original; half the time that the major media deigns to notice the D3 tourney, it results in a column that employs the exact same "the little guys are doing it all with spit and baling wire down at D3" angle that Burwell used. Wash U fan Marty Peretz accurately referred to the column in the Tournament room as a "template". The only thing worse than a condescending sportswriter is an unoriginal one. Also, as Marty and ILive4This pointed out, there were numerous inaccuracies in Burwell's column.

The caliber of basketball at the highest levels of D3 deserves some respect on its own merits. The student-athletes who play on this level work much too hard in games, practices, and in the classroom to deserve this sort of pat-on-the-head patronizing attitude from the media. Yes, D3 basketball needs the publicity ... but I don't see why its coaches, players, and teams ought to suffer the loss of their dignity at the hands of some hack sportswriter in getting it.

Hack? I know this is just your opinion and it comes from someone who writes volumes every night. But, Hack? Hacks don't become feature writers at major newspapers without credentials. I'm still waiting to hear Burwell's reply from your opinions. bburwell@post-dispatch.com

Please post his response to your journalistic evaluations of his work. I'm waiting to see his response.

Folks, with out major media coverage this tournament will never be anything more then the "widdle d3 event" mentioned. And, yet when coverage is given, instead of taking it for what it is worth all we do is bash it.

It brings me to the conclusion that a lot of people here on this board are just find with the way it is. Keep it pigeon holed to a point that the only news is what a few posters put on this site.

I don't beleive this is what the majority is striving for. IMHO

fc---

I think almost (unless its completely negative) any coverage of DIII is positive as we "little guys" can use all the exposure we can get. If I interpret your meaning correctly, I believe we're in agreement there.

With regard to Greg's comments, while I don't completely agree, I would say the tone of Mr. Burwell's comments is a bit condescending. Perhaps that stems from the fact that he is more used to covering professional and major college events. And, as he is not too familiar with the culture within the DIII level community, he is not fully able to appreciate the essence and thus the beauty of competition on the smaller scale.   

[Ralph Turner]

Folks, without major media coverage this tournament will never be anything more then the "widdle d3 event" mentioned. And, yet when coverage is given, instead of taking it for what it is worth all we do is bash it.

It brings me to the conclusion that a lot of people here on this board are just find with the way it is. Keep it pigeon holed to a point that the only news is what a few posters put on this site.

I don't believe this is what the majority is striving for. IMHO

fcnews, I take a different opinion about the tournament and coverage by a major daily newspaper.  Is the story valid?  Is the story unique?  Is it informative?  There is no mention that the D-III Men's most outstanding player was in that game.  That omission is glaring.  Would he have written a story about the person who won the Heisman Trophy playing a game in St Louis and not mention that award. I wonder if he even knows about the Jostens.

I want Division III fans to understand that the value of our sport is not defined by the Post-Dispatch.  We have very articulate D-III fans who know this game as well as anyone on any level.  We do not have to apologize for the quality of play and intensity that we see demonstrated, especially for those of us who like "amateur athletics".

The internet age is turning the sports world upside down as it is every other realm.  We can get great sporting entertainment value and enjoyment from this web site, and links to all of the content that a D3 fan could want.  We can judge thru our own eyes.

In summary, I have no financial interest in these web sites.  But I have an intense interest to see that these sites grow to become the entertainment vehicle that most of us want it to become. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph, he DID mention Ruths' award.  But, alas, just like you did, he misidentified it!  The Jostens is NOT the most outstanding player award; it is an award for excellence 'on the court, in the classroom, and in the community'.  From him that may be an acceptable point of confusion, but we expect our Texas guru to know better!

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph, he DID mention Ruths' award.  But, alas, just like you did, he misidentified it!  The Jostens is NOT the most outstanding player award; it is an award for excellence 'on the court, in the classroom, and in the community'.  From him that may be an acceptable point of confusion, but we expect our Texas guru to know better!

...the Division III national player of the year couldn't stop smiling...

Thanks, Mr Ypsi! My bad!  As I read the article, I was looking for Jostens.   

Not the desired precision to which I aspire....

[usee]

I've responded to this post elsewhere and I am not going to copy and paste my posts around the board, unlike you, but I disagree with your conclusion at its very base.

For the record, I have read the thread on the "other" board and I agree nearly completely with Pat and Greg. (that may be a first!)

I think the article was bunk. I love coverage of D3 but not lazy man's boilerplate I can't do my job type coverage.

[petemcb]

OK.  Enough about the St. Louis article already.  I've already given two thumbs up to the Dave Kindred article.  Anyone agree?  Why don't we all just reread that one and feel better?