MBB: Landmark Conference

[Pat Coleman]

Any poster with 200 or more posts can add or take away one point on other people's karma in any given 24 hour period.

Since there are literally thousands of posters with 200 or more posts, there's a lot of criteria people could use.

[fanuofs]

Congrats to all the students who play DIII basketball for mostly no publicity and a LOT of work.  Like I told my son when he played... while you were working your a## off full time in landscaping job over the summer making money to pay for your college expenses, and trying to get to the gym at night, DI and some DII athletes were in the gym full time to get ready for their 'job' at school.   
I give these DIII kids a lot of credit and don't know how they get it all done.  Congrats to the Landmark Conference for some AMAZING games this year.  The scores were close the games were hard fought and it was a great competitive atmosphere.  Let's hope it continues next year! 
As far as who gets credit and who doesn't on these boards - that is what makes it interesting to read ... all of the back and forth, petty and not - some really funny - otherwise it would be boring.
Enjoy the 'off season'!

Enjoy your off season too! We are assemblying quite an army of Loyal Royals on this board.

Yes, quite an assembly!  Isn't it great!  Go Royals!   Uh oh.... I think my karma will become even more negative than it is!

[centfan]

thanks pat. that makes alot of sense now.i appreciate it.

[centfan]

in terms of the cabrini player coming in (as a previous d1 recruit) as a 21 year old freshman playing d3, it certainly gives him an advantage. i know a kid playing who turned 21 in his first semester senior year...that is a three year difference from the cabrini kid!! i am glad he is in school but he clearly has an advantage over age appropriate kids. he is  a grown man already.

[saratoga]

Mailsy: No grapes...sour or otherwise.
As I said, I wish the young man all the best & hope he completes his education & proves to be an outstanding dad to his child.
What I was referring to is a section within the NCAA Compliance Summary which states under the subtitle Campus Visits/Tryouts:
"A member institution, on its campus or elsewhere, shall NOT conduct (or have conducted on its behalf) any physical activity (e.g. practice session or test/tryout) at which one or more prospects reveal, demonstrate or display their athletic abilities in any sport".
My question is, was the coach there because he was made aware of this "pickup" game in his gym or was it just one of those chance encounters?   
In D-III, it is correct that coaches can contact student/athletes virtually every day after the start of their junior year. However, they are also very clear that "tryouts & or displaying talents" in front of a coach or coaches on a campus is a direct violation.

[Pat Coleman]

I would suggest "conduct" is probably the salient word here. An open gym is just open, not conducted.

[NEPAFAN]

Scranton finishes the year ranked, number 15 in the nation. Congrats!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I would suggest "conduct" is probably the salient word here. An open gym is just open, not conducted.

I also imagine if you've got a pickup game with players invited by a pro-player, any basketball fan (coaches included) might show up to see what's happening.  I know I would.

[fanuofs]

Mailsy: No grapes...sour or otherwise.
As I said, I wish the young man all the best & hope he completes his education & proves to be an outstanding dad to his child.
What I was referring to is a section within the NCAA Compliance Summary which states under the subtitle Campus Visits/Tryouts:
"A member institution, on its campus or elsewhere, shall NOT conduct (or have conducted on its behalf) any physical activity (e.g. practice session or test/tryout) at which one or more prospects reveal, demonstrate or display their athletic abilities in any sport".
My question is, was the coach there because he was made aware of this "pickup" game in his gym or was it just one of those chance encounters?   
In D-III, it is correct that coaches can contact student/athletes virtually every day after the start of their junior year. However, they are also very clear that "tryouts & or displaying talents" in front of a coach or coaches on a campus is a direct violation.

I may get in trouble for this... but here goes.  And please know, I believe I can speak to this as someone who became a parent mid-way through college senior year...Who is supporting Aaron's baby, and mother of baby while he is going to school full time and playing basketball in his non-school hours?  I worked a second shift job to get money while going to school during the day my senior year... and we still lived at home with our parents...  but we all know that basketball is full time during the season.  I'm all for the degree - but the basketball is a luxury, espcially when you have a child to support...

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Mailsy: No grapes...sour or otherwise.
As I said, I wish the young man all the best & hope he completes his education & proves to be an outstanding dad to his child.
What I was referring to is a section within the NCAA Compliance Summary which states under the subtitle Campus Visits/Tryouts:
"A member institution, on its campus or elsewhere, shall NOT conduct (or have conducted on its behalf) any physical activity (e.g. practice session or test/tryout) at which one or more prospects reveal, demonstrate or display their athletic abilities in any sport".
My question is, was the coach there because he was made aware of this "pickup" game in his gym or was it just one of those chance encounters?   
In D-III, it is correct that coaches can contact student/athletes virtually every day after the start of their junior year. However, they are also very clear that "tryouts & or displaying talents" in front of a coach or coaches on a campus is a direct violation.

I may get in trouble for this... but here goes.  And please know, I believe I can speak to this as someone who became a parent mid-way through college senior year...Who is supporting Aaron's baby, and mother of baby while he is going to school full time and playing basketball in his non-school hours?  I worked a second shift job to get money while going to school during the day my senior year... and we still lived at home with our parents...  but we all know that basketball is full time during the season.  I'm all for the degree - but the basketball is a luxury, espcially when you have a child to support...

I went to school with basketball players who worked 20 hours a week on top of practice.  It's not that uncommon, especially if they qualify for work study on campus.

Just looking at Cabrini's numbers - they don't have a huge endowment, but they don't have a huge student body either.  12% of students have their entire financial need met by the school through scholarships; the average amount of need met is 66%.  Without knowing the specifics, I'd guess Walton-Moss is probably in the higher third of needy students, so he probably got between 80% and 100% of his financial need met.

At this point, with kids to support and a couple of years working with only a HS diploma, I imagine that the investment for school (even if he had to take some loans) is probably worth it to him.

While there have been some sketchy scholarship dealings with d3 athletes in the past, the NCAA has really cracked down over the last decade and it's really very difficult for athletes to get special treatment in that way.  Admissions standards, yes, and perhaps playing basketball was one way for a kid with a poor academic history to get into a school like Cabrini.

Again, this is all hypothetical - and I'm not a Cabrini fan or anything - but there are some numbers available.  I graduated from undergrad 9 years ago and I'm still paying off debt I took on as an investment in the future.  It's just not that difficult to see how and why he's doing what he's doing.

[fanuofs]

Mailsy: No grapes...sour or otherwise.
As I said, I wish the young man all the best & hope he completes his education & proves to be an outstanding dad to his child.
What I was referring to is a section within the NCAA Compliance Summary which states under the subtitle Campus Visits/Tryouts:
"A member institution, on its campus or elsewhere, shall NOT conduct (or have conducted on its behalf) any physical activity (e.g. practice session or test/tryout) at which one or more prospects reveal, demonstrate or display their athletic abilities in any sport".
My question is, was the coach there because he was made aware of this "pickup" game in his gym or was it just one of those chance encounters?   
In D-III, it is correct that coaches can contact student/athletes virtually every day after the start of their junior year. However, they are also very clear that "tryouts & or displaying talents" in front of a coach or coaches on a campus is a direct violation.

I may get in trouble for this... but here goes.  And please know, I believe I can speak to this as someone who became a parent mid-way through college senior year...Who is supporting Aaron's baby, and mother of baby while he is going to school full time and playing basketball in his non-school hours?  I worked a second shift job to get money while going to school during the day my senior year... and we still lived at home with our parents...  but we all know that basketball is full time during the season.  I'm all for the degree - but the basketball is a luxury, espcially when you have a child to support...

I went to school with basketball players who worked 20 hours a week on top of practice.  It's not that uncommon, especially if they qualify for work study on campus.

Just looking at Cabrini's numbers - they don't have a huge endowment, but they don't have a huge student body either.  12% of students have their entire financial need met by the school through scholarships; the average amount of need met is 66%.  Without knowing the specifics, I'd guess Walton-Moss is probably in the higher third of needy students, so he probably got between 80% and 100% of his financial need met.

At this point, with kids to support and a couple of years working with only a HS diploma, I imagine that the investment for school (even if he had to take some loans) is probably worth it to him.

While there have been some sketchy scholarship dealings with d3 athletes in the past, the NCAA has really cracked down over the last decade and it's really very difficult for athletes to get special treatment in that way.  Admissions standards, yes, and perhaps playing basketball was one way for a kid with a poor academic history to get into a school like Cabrini.

Again, this is all hypothetical - and I'm not a Cabrini fan or anything - but there are some numbers available.  I graduated from undergrad 9 years ago and I'm still paying off debt I took on as an investment in the future.  It's just not that difficult to see how and why he's doing what he's doing.

I don't see a kid with a poor academic record working anywhere near 20 hours a week, basketball pracitce, games and getting grades good enough to be at a school like Cabrini.  Again - school good... basketball a definite luxury, especially with a baby.  I believe education is the only way to get out of his situation, but something has to give when it comes to supporting the family you made.

[cold_case]

Very impressed Royals... very impressed. Heck of a shot to end it... but also heck of a job to be in that position. Glad you went out there and proved you could play with Middlebury... helping lead to the fact that for the first time since 2001... there will be no UAA or NESCAC team in Salem!

Round of applause!

augie... did you read this?! Seems you must have missed it before you spouted off about what I say on this board. Further more... one year where the Landmark makes a significant mark in the NCAA tournament isn't 10 years of being wrong.

Dave, you misunderstood an earlier post from me in regards to a fan complaining of you being biased towards Cabrini when it read IWU ...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

cold_case... the point was made that Pat and I don't come on these boards and congratulate teams... not to mention the fact that we are wrong all the time and hide when we are... I was pointing out that I indeed did congratulate Scranton and to say otherwise is getting to the point of insulting.

So what is your point? The fact I misread your previous point about something COMPLETELY different?

[cold_case]

Here is my point, Dave.

Scranton finishes ranked No. 15?
Sorry, but these final rankings are just too bogus for my taste. in fact, it leaves a foul odor in my mouth.
I mean, it took a run through the NCAA's by Scranton to have "voters" realize their clueless when it comes to ranking teams.
Excuses like strength of schedule or conference just doesn't cut it and it goes back to, once again, challenging the intelligence of most fans.
This is not Division I where we can see anyone play with the flick on the remote. It's Division III, where all teams play under obscurity and use their school stream in hopes of 50 fans watching them.
Maybe, just maybe, the powers-that-be who consistently rank their favorites would consider the Staying Power Effect?
You know, look into the teams history of winning conference title, national titles and NCAA appearances like Scranton as a reason why this program has a huge target on its back. It's extra effort time to play those darn Royals night in and night out.
When you boil it all down, if I'm, say, Podunk Tech College, I want to beat Scranton and an F&M instead of perhaps one-year wonders like Messiah or Cabrini and such, right?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

cold_case... Cabrini a one-year wonder? Funny... for four years they have been on the rise and made it to the NCAA tournament two years in a row... ten times in their history... winning their conference 9 times. Their record in the last four years... 102-19.

Scranton hasn't been to the second weekend of the NCAA Tournament since 2003... and have only been to the second round twice since then... it isn't like they have staying power.

Their ranking at #15... seems a bit high. I think the Royals played very good basketball late in the year, but they and Cabrini were part of what I coined the Dirty Jobs bracket... teams did the dirty work for other teams. Becker beat William Paterson, Scranton didn't have to face them. Scranton beat Middlebury (still impressed with that game plan from Coach Danzig), Cabrini didn't face them (but after watching the Cavaliers vs. IWU and UWW, this might not have been an issue), even Hobart beating Ohio Wesleyan might have been a help to the Cavaliers (though, OWU's coach told me he doesn't think they could have gotten past Cabrini).

Scranton didn't get any votes from any voter pretty much the entire year. This is from a group of voters that saw ONE voter cast a vote for Castleton State in the final poll!

Scranton has been very consistent over the years and no one, except Merchant Marine off the top of my head, has beaten them recently for the conference title. But I think we are thinking the Landmark is better than it really is. It is a mid-range conference that has produced some nice teams in the NCAA tournament, but hasn't been a power conference or even in the upper tier for good reason.

By the way, it isn't like Scranton is ignored... F&M has a storied history... so does Wooster, Wittenberg, and Hope... and only ONE of those schools was in my Top 25 this year early on. Eventually all five made it... but it wasn't because I was voting my favorites... in that case I should put in Goucher every year - despite the fact they are lousy.

Strength of schedule, conference strength, non-conference opponents, where games are played, how teams play and how teams win or lose are just a small number of factors that go into voting or not voting for a team in a poll (in my opinion).

By saying "excuses like strength of schedule or conference just doesn't cut it and it goes back to, once again, challenging the intelligence of most fans" and then following that up with "the powers-that-be who consistently rank their favorites would consider the Staying Power Effect" seems like we should be voting for Scranton because... well... they are Scranton. Is that fair to teams that are actually better? Make it to the Final Four? Lose just two games on the season?

Scranton is good... they played very well this season... they got a place in my final ballot. But I am not going to throw around votes to teams just because of their name... or "staying power"... this isn't a Top 25 based on how teams are in the past... it is this season.... it will be next season... and so on.

It amazes me how many fans think their team is slighted... because they don't get votes... because their team is so great based on things like a name.