WBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[The Champ]

Didn't Point host both sectionals a few years back?

Yes.

And they didn't even make it to the WIAC Tournament Championship game...

[The Champ]

And just so everybody knows....

Stoutguy bought me a beer!!!

[foul_language]

Why do we always point to similar number of fouls for both teams as evidence a ref squad is unbiased? If a team fouls more, shouldn't it be called more? Has anyone ever gone through game tapes to count actual numbers of fouls (called and uncalled; right and wrong) and determine that all teams will foul about the same number of times in a game?

Masters thesis. A panel of people including officials, players, coaches; a library of game tapes representing multiple teams; a clicker for each panel member. Clicker should indicate who is voting for a foul at what time in the game. Compare tallies; if majority agrees a foul occurred, it did. Compare 'legitimate' (got concensus) fouls for both sides.

I'm seriously curious about this. Who needs a masters in coaching or some related area?

[crazy4hoops]

In 2002 Point Women went to Wash U the first weekend and hosted the second...in 2004 they won the tourney championship and ended up hosting both...

[Just Bill]

Didn't Point host both sectionals a few years back?

Yes.

And they didn't even make it to the WIAC Tournament Championship game...

We need some clarification here.

In 2002, Point women hosted a 1st round game, went on the road for a second round game and then hosted a 4-team sectional.  This is the year that Champ is referring to, but I don't think that's what Andrew meant when he said hosted "both sectionals".  As I see it, it's only possible to host one sectional a year, unless you are talking about hosting both men's and women's.  A 1st or 2nd round game is not a sectional.  Of course, this was the "old" structure where 1st and 2nd round games were played Wednesday/Saturday at different sites.  Now, the first two rounds are played Friday/Saturday at one site.  So you could host a "regional" and a sectional.  But in 2002, the "regional" didn't exist.

In 2004, but the Point men and women made the Sweet 16 (Point women had a first round bye and then hosted the second round), and both were very qualified to host a sectional.  There was a lot of discussion about permitting UWSP to host both a men's and women's sectional at the same time.  Eventually the chair of the men's committee and the chair of the women's commitee got together and agreed that it would be too difficult to host both tournaments at the same time.  The UWSP men were shipped out to Puget Sound and the women hosted the sectional.  I think this is what Andrew was talking about when he said "both sectionals".

So the answer to Andrew's question is no.  Point almost hosted both sectionals but the combined tournament committees decided not to award UWSP both.

Often times hosting a sectional comes down more to geography than seeding.  Actually, in the championship handbook, geography is the #1 criteria while seeding is about #3.  In 2002 Point got it because Point and Webster were within driving distance, while the other two schools were isolated in CA and WA.  To save a flight, it had to be at UWSP or Webster, and Webster has a rather small facility.

The same situation happened in 2004 with Point, Wash U. a TX team and a NC team.  In that case, seeding did win out as Point and Wash U both have acceptable gyms.  Points higher regional ranking won out.

[Just Bill]

Upon reading that I'm not sure I provided any clarification, but I think people were discussing slightly different topics as if they were the same.

[BDshotblocker]

Not to beat a dead horse but anybody who know's Chuck (I've spent many hours working AAU tournaments at Stout) know's how serious he takes officiating.  He has great pride, and great respect for the game.

[The Champ]

Why do we always point to similar number of fouls for both teams as evidence a ref squad is unbiased? If a team fouls more, shouldn't it be called more? Has anyone ever gone through game tapes to count actual numbers of fouls (called and uncalled; right and wrong) and determine that all teams will foul about the same number of times in a game?

Masters thesis. A panel of people including officials, players, coaches; a library of game tapes representing multiple teams; a clicker for each panel member. Clicker should indicate who is voting for a foul at what time in the game. Compare tallies; if majority agrees a foul occurred, it did. Compare 'legitimate' (got concensus) fouls for both sides.

I'm seriously curious about this. Who needs a masters in coaching or some related area?

Foul

With all due respect, in the previous 2 meetings of these two teams, EC was tagged with one fewer at Zorn and 5 more fouls at Johnson. 

If you want to do a masters thesis, what is the probability of in the third game at Johnson that the fouls would be exactly even?

There is no way to do it your way, as the camera doesn't have the same view as the officials.

It's an old cliche, but fouls seems to have a way of balancing themselves out.  And although I personally saw a couple of calls that went against Stout, I have to admit I saw a couple of calls go in their favor too.

As I stated before, the WIAC had no problems with Chuck's ability to be impartial.  Just some school officials and some fans.

I wish that those making accusations anonymously would have the courage to face Chuck and make their statements.  For some reason, I don't think they have the intestinal fortitude to do it.

[The Champ]

In 2002, Point women hosted a 1st round game, went on the road for a second round game and then hosted a 4-team sectional.  

Well, I was right for 3 out of 4 games....

[foul_language]

For the record, I'm not accusing anyone of anything; I don't know this Chuck guy, so I have no idea how he refs. I do think it's weak, though, to claim a game was called well or badly based on the relative number of fouls doled out to each team. And I've argued earlier on this site that I've rarely seen a game where the outcome is influenced much less determined by the calls.

Let's assume basketball was a no-contact sport (pfffft. right). In that case, any contact would be a foul. A ref could influence the play of the game by the way he or she calls fouls--loose "let 'em play" or tight. All teams should be prepared to play the no-contact game, since that's the original assumption. And the best prepared teams can play to the limits they're given.

My experience is that basketball is becoming increasingly like football and refs are pretty selective about the kind of contact they call 'fouls'. A team that can't adjust to the way a game is called is an ill-prepared team.

This omits those goof-balls that can't make up their minds about what they want to call, but there can't be that many of them around. Can there?

[mythicalbird]

For the record, I'm not accusing anyone of anything; I don't know this Chuck guy, so I have no idea how he refs. I do think it's weak, though, to claim a game was called well or badly based on the relative number of fouls doled out to each team. And I've argued earlier on this site that I've rarely seen a game where the outcome is influenced much less determined by the calls.

Let's assume basketball was a no-contact sport (pfffft. right). In that case, any contact would be a foul. A ref could influence the play of the game by the way he or she calls fouls--loose "let 'em play" or tight. All teams should be prepared to play the no-contact game, since that's the original assumption. And the best prepared teams can play to the limits they're given.

My experience is that basketball is becoming increasingly like football and refs are pretty selective about the kind of contact they call 'fouls'. A team that can't adjust to the way a game is called is an ill-prepared team.

This omits those goof-balls that can't make up their minds about what they want to call, but there can't be that many of them around. Can there?

Well I DO know Chuck personally.  I have for about 10 years....before he was even a coach at Regis High School.  Therefore I WOULD NOT defame him, nor did I really.  I just pointed out the irony with the Stout/AAU connection that EVERYONE who knows West Wisconsin Basketball saw at Johnson Fieldhouse on Saturday.  As stated earlier, I don't think he had anything to do with the outcome.  But as I believe (and many others that I have spoken with) I would NOT put myself in the position that he put himself in with close ties to each program whether it be through sponsors, boosters, coaches, and players.  That is all.

.......Carry on.....

[foul_language]

I would NOT put myself in the position that he put himself in with close ties to each program whether it be through sponsors, boosters, coaches, and players.

Actually, I agree with you on that. Sometimes the appearance if bias only needs the six degrees (or fewer) of separation between a ref and a team involved in the game. The result often is that, whether or not there actually was bias, there is the appearance of bias. That can be so distracting, that it becomes the focus; from that persepective, all calls become suspect.

Then we get into these big discussions, which carry absolutely no weight, because the game is done and gone. There's only next year, at which time we'll pull out this old discussion, dust it off and begin to predict what will happen if what's-his-name shows up to ref.

[Just Bill]

My friends at UWSP told me about a game between the Point women and Wheaton about 4 years or so ago.  The Wheaton coach discovered just before the game that one of the refs was a UWSP alum.

This was one of Point's Final Four teams, and the score turned ugly early.  For the rest of the game, every time that particular official made a debatable call, the Wheaton coach would shout, "Nice call, Point grad!"

[billys]

Boy the Stout squad is pretty defensive here.

But trying to say the an equal number of called fouls means the game was called fairly is ridiculous. As foul said, there probably can't be the exact same amount of fouls actually committed. Unfortunately I think people (coaches and officials) often do think the number of fouls on the scoreboard do determine whether or not a game is fair and we have seen PLENTY of officials make some calls that appear to "even the number" whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Not to mention PLENTY of coaches and fans who yell ... it's 6-1 blah, blah, blah. Yet the other team is playing a soft 2-3 zone and you're shooting all three's. Looking at the number means nothing.

I know the name Chuck Mourning only in that I've heard him to be associated with the Viking Club. I personally don't understand why the WIAC would put anyone, Chuck, Stout, anyone in that situation. I'm not accusing him of being anything ... it's just a huge game and it's obvious that link is pretty well known. Your rebuttals say if anything, he overcompensates ... that's not good either. In fact, that hurts your point even more. The fact that it would even have to cross his mind probably means he shouldn't call the game. They had two very good officials besides him, and I'm sure there was someone else capable of officiating that game.

He may have reffed perfectly but people have to understand the perception that's going to come out of it ... and it could have been avoided. I know other officials in the league have ties to some of the schools and therefore aren't allowed to officiate that game unless the other team's head coach agrees. So did Eau Claire protest prior or is that just hearsay?

[billys]

I wish that those making accusations anonymously would have the courage to face Chuck and make their statements.  For some reason, I don't think they have the intestinal fortitude to do it.


[/quote]

What was he accused of?