WBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[bulk19]

Re: Badgers vs. Pointers -

Not sure, but how do the rest of you feel about this question??? Is the gap in talent between D1 and D3 greater for the men's teams, or women's teams? The Pointer men, albeit at the top of the heap in D3, were able to play with Marquette.

Not sure that is the case with the Pointer women this year, as far as the Badger game. But, I can't say I know much about the talent level at D1, compared to D3. Is it as big a jump as it is on the men's side?

That being said, I think the Pointer women from 2002 (National champs) and 2004 (4th place team), could give the Badgers a run for the money. They had some special players on those teams - Kari Groshek, Carry Boehning, Andrea Kraemer, Tara Schmitt, Amy Scott, Cassandra Heuer, Cassandra Schultz, Amanda Nechuta... Each was a big-time player in different aspects of the game, and those were great teams...

Not sure the Pointers, though, who will be good again this year, really have that "star" player on the team... Will be interesting to see who the "go-to" player is? Or if it is truly a team effort, by committee, which could make them unpredictable and dangerous from that standpoint?

Anyway, off to Zorn to see the Lady Blugolds' intrasquad game. A young team last year that finished in the middle of the pack has grown up a bit. But then again, so have some of the other teams, who were also young, and ahead of them in the standings. Which team will improve the most over last year??? Makes for another great season forthcoming...

[buf]

Back from Blu/Gold Game.

Heidi A., by far the best player. 

Good games from Witt and Burns.

The 6'3" transfer made a couple good shots in the 1st half but did not do much in the 2nd.  She's big and strong but doesn't have good movement or agressiveness.

3-point shooting was PATHETIC!!!  Maybe 15%.  More airballs than makes.

Overall, not one of the best performed Blu-Gold games, but these games don't really tell a whole lot about what's in-store for the regular season and can be decieving.

My guess at starting lineup:
Anderson
Burns
Heidi A.
Mueg.
Witt

[EagleAlum]

bulk- I firmly believe the D1-D3 gap is bigger in women's; heck not only D1-D3 but D1-D2 or High D1 to Mid-Major D1. Size alone is a huge factor in the women's game since jumping ability is fairly even. If there's a 6-1, 6-2, 6-3 girl with decent skill; they're getting a scholarship more often than not D-1. Then if you go to the perimeter a 5'11 or taller girl that can shoot or handle the ball = scholarship. The WIAC is lucky because their first teamers are scholarship level and in same cases should be D-1 players. It takes players that should be a D1 or D2 to win the WIAC; if you have one that's usually good enough; i.e. Duoss. How much different would recent history be if she hadn't transferred back. Hunter and Heidi A, last year's top frosh, should be going to school for much cheaper than they are.

Looking at Marquette's roster, they have one player under 5'11" huge wings and huge front court. Most men's teams, at least size wise can match up a little better. Heck, tonight the Parkside men (who will be okay this year) went to Milwaukee and beat UWM.

I think the women's game will get to the point where the gap gets closed. Right now I just think the pool of men's players is so much deeper that a really good D-3 has the strength, size, and athleticism gap much smaller than the women do.

[bulk19]

Hey buf - Just back from Zorn, too...

The two teams were split into squads of 8 (Gold), with the 7 returnees, and maybe four, or all five starters???

and 9 (White), with three returnees, two transfers and four freshmen. Two potential starters? So, I thought it would be perhaps onesided, but it was tied, or within two, at half, if I remember correctly. But then Golds pulled away for a 60-49 win...

Stats show Heidi Arciszewski and Michelle Burns, both with 18, to lead the Golds. Burns also had 10 boards. Good to see her, and Rachel Mueggenborg, back healthy...

Heather Wiit had 12 points and 8 boards for the Blues...

I'm not sure what the starting lineup will be - Burns, Arciszewski and Ashley Anderson, and Brittani Hakanson. Mueggenborg or Witt? I don't know how it will end up - I really am impressed with Witt - but I think she may be better suited off the bench? She did provide a lot of spark last year, but did show a lot of hustle and leadership tonight...

Guard matchups tonight - Witt and Mueggenborg vs. Arciszewski and Angie Foschi = was fun to watch. They all bring something different to the court, and will provide great depth, no matter who starts...

I think Zenner played a key role off the bench, too. She'd be my sixth, first off the bench.

Not to slight the others, but I'm not sure I can make fair assessments on them based on seeing them just tonight. I liked a little bit of what each of them had to contribute, though. Looks like each one can address a specific area...

I liked the intensity on D on both sides. I also liked the competitiveness between the two teams. Although they ultimately comprise one team, when the ball went up, it was as if there were two different schools out there tonight. Each team wanted to win, and you could see that by how the players treated their "opponents." IE - it wasn't as if a Blue was congratulating a Gold for a great play... They wanted their team to win, and they had their game faces on... if that makes any sense...  

No seniors on this team, so the future looks good... Lot of WIAC teams were young last year, though, so it's going to be a matter of who improved and added the most during the offseason, and who continues to improve during the course of the year...

[Dark Knight]

bulk- I firmly believe the D1-D3 gap is bigger in women's; heck not only D1-D3 but D1-D2 or High D1 to Mid-Major D1.
...
Right now I just think the pool of men's players is so much deeper that a really good D-3 has the strength, size, and athleticism gap much smaller than the women do.

You can see the effects of the smaller talent pool even between better and worse teams in D3. According to last year's Massey ratings, the 75th-percentile D3 women's team would be a 19 point favorite over the 25th-percentile team, while for men the difference is 14 points.

The men's team with the highest power rating (Wittenberg) would be a 69-point favorite over lowly Daniel Webster, but last year's Hope team would be a eye-opening 137-point favorite over Mt. Mary, who had results such as a 7-98 loss against Upper Iowa (6-23).

[badgerwarhawk]

A 'what would you do in this hypothetical situation' question:

You're a coach (any level, doesn't matter); you have a pretty good team of players, several players at each position who can handle it, not much difference between them--not significant. One player tells you he/she won't play unless he/she starts.

What is your response?

If they're good enough to start I tell them, "you will be."

If they're on the bubble I tell them, "you're close but need to do A, B and C to crack the starting lineup.

If I can only see them as a sub I tell them,  "you'll play a substitute role and need to work on A, B and C to see more court time."

If that isn't good enough I tell them, "Stay in school, get your degree and enjoy the intramural program while you're here."


I think a coach owes it to a player to tell them honestly and specifically what they have to get better at if they want more time on the floor.   Then it's up to the player to decide what to do with that information.  Stay and work, stay and be a student or go elsewhere. 

[foul_language]

The hypothetical situation pretty clearly is a question of who has power on the team. If the player is obviously better than everyone, he or she wouldn't have to issue ultimatum.  Once the challenge has been made, does it matter if the player is better or worse than others? The set up indicates there is some question about a starting spot, and perhaps there should be on a good team. Each game poses its own set of challenges and different players may be useful for different games. That's why there has to be some sense of who's running the team--coach or players? If players work under the assumption that they are too valuable to lose, the power shifts. Can players be objective about individual game strategies if they're focused on their own importance?

How many times have you seen players in games they shouldn't be in? I'd rather the coach be making bad decisions about that than the players controlling the line-up.

Then, again, maybe the importance of 'starting' could be debated.

[crazy4hoops]

the preseason rankings are out....
UW Stout and UW L get into the top 25 with UWSP receiving votes.....

[Just Bill]

Great early test at a tip-off tournament for Eau Claire.  They get #9 Baldwin-Wallace in the first game, and then a potential match against #4, and defending national champion, Hope in the second game.

[Just Bill]

Previews for tonight's exhibiton game:

From UWSP:
http://www.uwsp.edu/athletics/wbb/2006-07/wbboct31notes.pdf

From UW:
http://www.uwbadgers.com/sport_news/wbb/headlines/story.html?sportid=135&storyid=9578

You'll notice UW simply pulled all their UWSP info word-for-word from the UWSP preview.

[laxeaglepride]

back to the pre-season picks...what are the feelings out there??
Also anyword on the media day outcomes....it should be interesting to see if the WIAC pre-seasons are similair (Stout, LaX, SP)

[badgerwarhawk]

back to the pre-season picks...what are the feelings out there??
Also anyword on the media day outcomes....it should be interesting to see if the WIAC pre-seasons are similair (Stout, LaX, SP)

Media day is today. 

I just don't know the women's teams well enough to rank them intelligently.  Anyway, I always pick WHITEWATERlol

[crazy4hoops]

preseason picks or educated guesses as we can call them  ....

1. Stout/UWSP I predict a season split with a showdown in conference tourney

2. UWL

3. UWW (I hate to say it but i believe they are a top 4 team talent wise...as for them executing it....that will be another story

4. UWEC-well coached always decent no matter who they have

5. UWP-I agree this one will take a while to build with the newcomers

6. UWRF

7. UWO ( I know I will get grief for this one)

8. UWSUP

[Just Bill]

I think Whitewater and Platteville are the two real mysteries.  You could slot them anywhere from 4th to 8th and make a reasonable argument why you put them there.

[wisconsinball]

Conference picks

1. Stout - loaded, strong senior leadership and have both the post and perimeter game

2.  UWL - should be even stronger than last year

UWL and Stout should be in the top tier.  Stout should win their 3rd Championship in a row.  I think it will be a big year for Stout.   The next tier of teams...........

3.  UWSP/UWW/UWRF/UWEC  - toss up.  Depends on if they can upset Stout or UWL and not lose agaist a team on the bottom of the conference.  UWRF is a veteran team, with solid guard and post play.  UWW and UWEC have solid JR/Soph classes and if their newcomers can contribute will be a factor.  UWSP, replacing Schultz will be huge and getting a true point guard.  

7.  UWO - only 10/11 players, wow.  The end of the season and their conditioning should play a huge factor.  They always seem to start strong, but start a downward slide in mid January.  

8.  UWP -  ??

9. UWSUP - hopefully the new coach can get them some wins and move the program forward.  


I think UWRF is the dark horse in the conference.  They are much better than they are given credit for.  UWW could end up third, or could even fall to 7th ir 8th.  It is too bad Baker cold never be fully healthy for them. 



Conference Champion - Stout
Tournament Champion - Stout (beating UWL in a tough game)
POY - Duoss

NCAA tournament reps - UWL, Stout  Finally get 2 teams in!!!