WBB: NESCAC

[amh63]

Sumfun....thanks for more insight of conference "recruitment limits".  However, I do believe SenatorFrost is correct to state that there are more limits put on coaches....limits imposed by the Presidents of the conference schools.  Buried in an earlier post was my statement of NCAA participation by conference teams.  The "ban" on teams was lifted in 1993.  It was preceded by a temporary lift in the mid 80's when the conference wanted to see what impact it would have on the academic schedules.
Anyway, though my info is based on the men team side, I believe it crosses over to the women teams.  Your point on the limited budget for recruiting maybe a "chicken or egg" type point (in spite of the economic conditions these days).  If you have tight limits, it follows that one's budget is smaller.  As I stated earlier in another post, I believe the football coach cannot talk to possible recruits in person off campus.  A decade or more ago, I was told by a work associate that he saw the Amherst soccer coach at an all-star game/tournament in which his son was participating (his son went on to a Div1 school to play).  I was quite surprised at the info.  The following Fall, Amherst had a new soccer coach with the previous coach going to a Div. 1 school in the mid-west, I believe.  here again, the change may be a "chicken and egg" thing.  I guess the particulars of the conference restrictions must be obtained from the AD's.
Oh yes, there is to be the first WBB all-star game in the MD/Va/DC area for both public and private HS players.....after decades of such events for the MBB players.  It was interesting to read statements that the girls enjoyed the chance to play and be recognized by their friends, etc.....even though many had played in numerous AAU-type events.  What is next?  On-line recruiting forums/updates/services that exist now for the boys.  Are there online sites now for WBB?  I am in uncharted waters here.

[WUPHF]

That's certainly true in general but not about Wash U.  Which isn't to say the play didn't happen the way you describe.  You just can't roll it up to those wild statements with any credibility.  It's an outstanding school with a coach who has a good reputation - is both liked and respected - and yes, wins big games.   I'm going to have to watch the archived game to see the play, but Wash U is a great program; one that doesn't deserve to be taken down based on one play. 

If you find the archived game, can you post the link?  I watched almost the entire game and I do not remember the Hoover move, so I want to see this for myself.

[gordonmann]

While I'm here I'd like to say that I thought what ALex Hoover did to Caroline Stedman was pretty brutal to put it mildly. Obviously the game was more important than the health and safety of an opponent, or in this case, perhaps the word 'Enemy' may be more accurate. Stedman was no doubt stunned and shaken by the cheap shot and it's for certain it didn't help her at the line. I would not have been at all surprised if she had been badly hurt-luck was with her.

I didn't see it that way and I don't remember Gromacki or Stedman taking exception to the foul.  And Stedman had a time out taken in between the free throws to shake off the contact.

[Title9Fan]

I'm still looking WUH - will let you know.  Although if I don't find it, Gordon's comment suffices (for me).  

[senatorfrost]

   Parents and what they say. I once had an Amherst parent tell me his offspring had 1480 SAT's. I believed but I would not have been willing to back my conviction. I once had a parent from another NESCAC school tell me their offspring had 1160-80 SAT's. They said 1180 was not high enough for Amherst. I believed because if they really wanted to impress me a little they could have told me somewhere around 1300.
  Then I had a UAA parent tell me that their offspring scored less than 900 and they were surprised they got in to the UAA school. I also met a UAA parent who reported a less than 1000 SAT. They were also surprised and were even more surprised or pleased at the amount of financial aid.
  Then I met a parent who didn't mention any scores but did tell me about the financial aid package and how wonderful that it was for MUCH more than anyone else offered. I was told that's the way it was in the UAA (more or less) and in view of the greater class sizes it's not so unbelievable. Wash U is probably about 30-40 points higher than Deis and probably about the same as Amherst so they probably don't have to bend as much-
   So everyone is free to believe what they want. Isn't it always a choice between fantasy and reality?

[senatorfrost]

  Gee whiz I got more negative karma. Talk about hurting a person, wow. I'm stunned!!!
  I saw Wittenberg. They played what I was told was midwest style-They pushed and shoved and gave hard fouls. They were rough and I thought they bordered on the 'dirty'. The refs disagreed and I would like to point out that I never saw Wittenberg do anything as bad as what the Hoover girl did. (In D3 i.e.) I've certainly never seen a D3 woman come close to what she did. Stedman could have been very badly hurt.
  I'd like to see the film also. It doesn't matter to me what Gordon Mann says or what Title 9 fan says. I know only what I see and praising the Wash U coach because she wins and/or the school is a good one isn't going to change my mind at all. What I find very interesting is that Mr. Mann makes a judgment as to how Stedman felt based on what? How she looked on the screen? He also seems to know that her nerves were fine inside after being smashed and smashed hard. Well it's nice to have that kind of power and insight. When I was smashed I never recovered all that quickly. I needed at least 4-5 minutes.
  If I had been coaching I would have wanted revenge and that's one reason why I'm not coaching because to seek revenge in a situation like that is also wrong.

   I would like to see the film if anyone can produce it. I hope someone can make it available. I mean let's see. Wash U could certainly put it on here.

[senatorfrost]

  Just went to the site to see highlights. I was shocked to see that all they showed were baskets, mostly 3's. Very pretty-people like to see that. It was called highlights but gee whiz they left out the smashing with the game on the line. What a surprise.

[gordonmann]

No, Senator, I made my judgment based on being at the game and having the benefit of seeing all of Amherst not react to the play.  Including the bench.  If Amherst thought it was a dirty play, they had a funny way of showing it.

And incidentally Wash U. doesn't have the power to put the video online.  It's owned by the NCAA.

[senatorfrost]

Sorry Gordon it doesn't always work like that. In 2005 I saw a player grab and violently shove an Amherst M player on a breakaway who went flying into some padding. This particular player who shoved seemed to have a screw loose as it was he who started complaining to the ref.
   The ref called the foul so there was nothing for Hixon to do since a intentional foul call is strictly a matter of judgment AND is almost never called in such a situation unless the offending player can't somehow mask her intent.
    Coach Gromacki for the most part seems to do all his complaining very quietly. I haven't seen him get too demonstrative over calls. Also the foul was called-little point in arguing. However, if you want to believe it was a wholesome foul, go right ahead.
Let me ask you a question. I saw many highlights at the Wash U site of the Amherst game-Does that mean the NCAA put them there? Is it possible Wash U filmed it the game? I think Wash U could get the tape.

[Title9Fan]

Frost,

I watched Fahey coach and train high school prospects for an entire week at Brandeis the summer before last.  (Much more info than you seem to have, yet you're bashing her).

If the foul as was you say, that's one thing.  (I agree that the midwest style is as you described: much more pushing, shoving and hard fouling in the paint).  But you've confused the whole issue and caused it to digress into a slam against a coach and an entire program based on one 2 second play by 1 player.

Fahey is one of those coaches who players flock to, btw.  She's got a great sense of humor and a contagious love of the game.  That's from personal experience and observations.  

Let's keep some perspective when talking about the game vs. individual people.  This is a fair issue but you've really messed it up big, and that's probably the karma result.  

[WUPHF]

However, if you want to believe it was a wholesome foul, go right ahead.

Let me ask you a question. I saw many highlights at the Wash U site of the Amherst game-Does that mean the NCAA put them there? Is it possible Wash U filmed it the game? I think Wash U could get the tape.

You seem to be a man (or woman) of extreme views. 

The foul was either brutal or wholesome.  The Bears played so aggressively that you want to call the Chancellor.  The NESCAC is a league of angels, the UAA a league of devils.  Washington University, if they have the right to distribute a highlight reel, they must have the right to distribute the entire game tape. 

Everything to you is always a choice between fantasy and reality.  Those are your words.  I am not even sure if I should take your comments seriously. 

In regards to the parent comments, do you find a seat by random parents and start asking them personal questions such as how did you son or daughter score on the college boards?  Or, did the university offer you a good financial package?

In regards to the Chancellor comment, the Chancellor and his wife were in attendance, but I do think you should call his office and complain.  That would be great.  He would probably tell you that half the local high schools play more aggressively than what you witnessed on Friday.

In regards to the actions by Coach Gromacki, obviously he knows what he is doing, but I know that if I thought the opposing team flagrantly fouled my player, I would defend my player and let the officials know.  Most coaches would, I believe.

And, finally, you have made too much of one foul, committed in the final, high pressure minutes of a Final Four game.  You suggested that this was an action of both the player, and indirectly the coach, and that position is not defensible.

I am going to have to remember to follow you next year.  Your posts are hilarious.

[Pat Coleman]

I saw many highlights at the Wash U site of the Amherst game-Does that mean the NCAA put them there? Is it possible Wash U filmed it the game? I think Wash U could get the tape.

The schools can't use the NCAA.com broadcast, but if they taped it with their own camera, like any other news organization, they could show highlights.

[Hwbb]

Just a couple of observations on your ongoing and interesting discussion, for what they're worth (and it may be nothing), from a midwesterner who's been listening in:

On recruiting locally or nationally, this additional observation--all of Hope's starters were from high schools and hometowns closer in distance to the Hope campus than any of WashU's starters were to their campus. Advantage or disadvantage? I don't know, except that there is apparently success in both. (And while Hope doesn't compete with Ivy League schools for players, as Amherst does, it competes with the D-2 Director's Cup recipient located 15 miles away and a host of NAIA schools, all of whom offer athletic aid.)

On the "Midwestern" style of play: yes, the Hope-WashU game was, I suppose, typically Midwestern rugged. Ironically, it was officiated, and thus allowed to be rugged, by three referees from the northeast region.

For what it's worth....

[WUPHF]

On recruiting locally or nationally, this additional observation--all of Hope's starters were from high schools and hometowns closer in distance to the Hope campus than any of WashU's starters were to their campus. Advantage or disadvantage? I don't know, except that there is apparently success in both. (And while Hope doesn't compete with Ivy League schools for players, as Amherst does, it competes with the D-2 Director's Cup recipient located 15 miles away and a host of NAIA schools, all of whom offer athletic aid.)

On the "Midwestern" style of play: yes, the Hope-WashU game was, I suppose, typically Midwestern rugged. Ironically, it was officiated, and thus allowed to be rugged, by three referees from the northeast region.

If the NESCAC fans are not careful, they may lose this thread, at least temporarily, to the midwesterners.  It may be that there are a few fans who do not want to stop talking basketball, and this is the one of the last active threads.

Your point about the Hope College and Washington University rosters is interesting.  The same could be said about the Hope College and Washington University Final Four volleyball teams.

I do think that your observations illustrate an important, if maybe obvious, point and that is that recruiting is very complex, and there is not one-size-fits-all solution.  Each institution faces is own unique challenges and obstacles.

[senatorfrost]

  I don't mean to suggest anyone is a devil or an angel. Wash U and other UAA schools have certain advantages that lets them do things small NESCAC schools can't. However if you like the terms devils and angels go right on using them.
   I thought about it and then realized that the rough play in the midwest is understandable. I am quite sure that at a similar stage of development (about 150 years ago) New England sports were most likely very rough and violent. Remember New England has the oldest universities in the country. They were 'book larnin' while folks in other parts were Baar huntin'.
  As for the foul it was clearly brutal. I saw Wittenberg-consistently very rough from the beginning but nothing that approached the Wash U foul. Perhaps the words fantasy and reality were a bit extreme.
  Through the years I have had a few parents from other schools tell me that they wished their offspring could have gotten into Amherst. At that point I confess, I always ask for scores, but I have never initiated such a conversation. The Amherst parent was proud but irked that his offspring didn't get into Harvard.

    The chancellor response is not all that perusasive. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying 'I know Daddy I did it but Scott did it more and it was his idea.'
Speaking of the Chancellor, would he be the first Chancellor to say violence is great if it brings victory to the cause. There was a very famous Chancellor but the name escapes me. I'll think of him.
   Gromacki is extremely well behaved. I sit behind the bench to the right and near the top. I have never heard him say a word. Soft spoken. I have made too much of this? No one forces you to read what I write or to respond. I feel I have to say something when I read the fantasy (oops) that Wash U defenders write. The foul may(?) have been barely legal, but it put a young woman in jeopardy. That's what I mean by brutal and win at all costs.
   As far as fabulous Coach Fahey-obviously she can coach and recruit. Even if she can really dip, there are plenty of competitors who can do the same, so her success sort of speaks for itself. However, she obviously espouses brutal fouls. (as seen by a New Englander) Just because everybody out there does it, doesn't make it any less brutal to me.  Oh and the fact that she has a great sense of humor is very sweet.