MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

Started by Pat Coleman, February 24, 2005, 09:17:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

cubs

2008-09 and 2012-13 WIAC Fantasy League Champion

2008-09 WIAC Pick'Em Tri-Champion

tomt4525

Pitino at Louisville gets suspended for 5 games for turning a blind eye to prostitutes being offered to prospective recruits while Semling gets suspended 3 times as long for observing some open gyms.  Good job making sense NCAA.  What a joke.

Greek Tragedy

Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 01:21:20 PM
Pitino at Louisville gets suspended for 5 games for turning a blind eye to prostitutes being offered to prospective recruits while Semling gets suspended 3 times as long for observing some open gyms.  Good job making sense NCAA.  What a joke.

I think the school actually suspended Semling, not the NCAA. I could be wrong though,yet you make a good point.
Pointers
Breed of a Champion
2004, 2005, 2010 and 2015 National Champions

Fantasy Leagues Commissioner

TGHIJGSTO!!!

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on June 15, 2017, 01:38:21 PM
Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 01:21:20 PM
Pitino at Louisville gets suspended for 5 games for turning a blind eye to prostitutes being offered to prospective recruits while Semling gets suspended 3 times as long for observing some open gyms.  Good job making sense NCAA.  What a joke.

I think the school actually suspended Semling, not the NCAA. I could be wrong though,yet you make a good point.

Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

Yes... the school actually suspended Semling, not the NCAA. We are still waiting to hear what the NCAA has to say on the UWSP case.

Both violations are actually "failing to monitor" a program... but in two very different divisions. Division I has its infractions committee and Division III has its. Division I has it's priorities and rules. Division III has its. Division I actually went after the operations guy pretty aggressively and Pitino for now overseeing that employee properly. Semling is both the coach and the operations guy in this case... so you could argue he is being targeted aggressively as a result. And, UWSP and Semling are repeat offenders on the same violation - illegal practices. Louisville and Pitino are not repeat offenders on this particular violation.

I will also add, this is Division III. The priorities here, especially by rule of the presidents, are very different. Illegal practices before the season begins or during the off-season is something that Division III has never allowed to slide. Trying to compare that to a punishment of strippers during the recruiting process at a Division I school isn't exactly the same. Keep it to the Division III side... that's where we should focus. Louisville is just a distraction from a different division and a different committee.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

tomt4525

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 01:43:17 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on June 15, 2017, 01:38:21 PM
Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 01:21:20 PM
Pitino at Louisville gets suspended for 5 games for turning a blind eye to prostitutes being offered to prospective recruits while Semling gets suspended 3 times as long for observing some open gyms.  Good job making sense NCAA.  What a joke.

I think the school actually suspended Semling, not the NCAA. I could be wrong though,yet you make a good point.

Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

Yes... the school actually suspended Semling, not the NCAA. We are still waiting to hear what the NCAA has to say on the UWSP case.

Both violations are actually "failing to monitor" a program... but in two very different divisions. Division I has its infractions committee and Division III has its. Division I has it's priorities and rules. Division III has its. Division I actually went after the operations guy pretty aggressively and Pitino for now overseeing that employee properly. Semling is both the coach and the operations guy in this case... so you could argue he is being targeted aggressively as a result. And, UWSP and Semling are repeat offenders on the same violation - illegal practices. Louisville and Pitino are not repeat offenders on this particular violation.

I will also add, this is Division III. The priorities here, especially by rule of the presidents, are very different. Illegal practices before the season begins or during the off-season is something that Division III has never allowed to slide. Trying to compare that to a punishment of strippers during the recruiting process at a Division I school isn't exactly the same. Keep it to the Division III side... that's where we should focus. Louisville is just a distraction from a different division and a different committee.

Yes, the school actually suspended Semling.  So, I'll retract my point involving the NCAA making zero sense.

With that said, I couldn't care less if this is Division 1 or 3...penalties should still be the level.  I also don't care if this is the 10th time UWSP has "violated" illegal practices.  Providing prostitutes to prospective recruits will always be a much worse violation in my eyes, MUCH WORSE.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Maybe in your eyes it is worse... but remember that Division I and Division III have different rules, for starters, on how their divisions are to be run. Secondly, who runs things and why they make certain decisions are different. There is no way in any scenario that the penalties are level. None. Recruiting, for starters, is on a completely different level. Secondly as I said before, presidents have much more say or "power" in Division III (they have it in Division I, but they are looking at different sent of financial numbers than Division III, obviously).

To try and make things level is not even something to consider, to be blunt. Nothing is level, why should penalties? Furthermore, Division I has a ton of different practice allowances that Division III does not have for GOOD reason (you know, students and not paying for students tuition through athletic scholarships). Illegal practices is a major no-no in Division III... especially for repeat offenders. Trying to say that strippers at Division I compares doesn't help the conversation at our level.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

tomt4525

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 02:18:24 PM
Maybe in your eyes it is worse... but remember that Division I and Division III have different rules, for starters, on how their divisions are to be run. Secondly, who runs things and why they make certain decisions are different. There is no way in any scenario that the penalties are level. None. Recruiting, for starters, is on a completely different level. Secondly as I said before, presidents have much more say or "power" in Division III (they have it in Division I, but they are looking at different sent of financial numbers than Division III, obviously).

To try and make things level is not even something to consider, to be blunt. Nothing is level, why should penalties? Furthermore, Division I has a ton of different practice allowances that Division III does not have for GOOD reason (you know, students and not paying for students tuition through athletic scholarships). Illegal practices is a major no-no in Division III... especially for repeat offenders. Trying to say that strippers at Division I compares doesn't help the conversation at our level.

Ok, after your first sentence...I'm done talking with you on the subject.   In my eyes, an actual illegal act of providing prostitutes to recruits is worse than a coach observing some kids playing basketball.  Yes...only my eyes can see that.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Well... you also say "observing" kids ... when I think everyone understands the UWSP case isn't about "observing."

Listen, I don't like the idea of prostitutes being handed to recruits at all. Don't get confused that I am either defending Louisville or some how condoning it. If we are talking about that specific case, then I have a lot of thoughts including wishing Pitino got more games.

My problem is trying to compare the cases and the divisions. That's where I disagree and am trying to stress that by doing so we only make this more confusing. Stick to DIII in terms of the UWSP case. DI has no standing nor comparison.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

tomt4525

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 03:21:33 PM
Well... you also say "observing" kids ... when I think everyone understands the UWSP case isn't about "observing."

Listen, I don't like the idea of prostitutes being handed to recruits at all. Don't get confused that I am either defending Louisville or some how condoning it. If we are talking about that specific case, then I have a lot of thoughts including wishing Pitino got more games.

My problem is trying to compare the cases and the divisions. That's where I disagree and am trying to stress that by doing so we only make this more confusing. Stick to DIII in terms of the UWSP case. DI has no standing nor comparison.

What exactly is this case all about then??  I know you've had plenty of conversations about this case with higher ups.  I've had conversations with the players that were there.  I go by their word.  Semling followed the direction of the old Athletic Director when he told Semling observing open gyms was fine.  Semling did not direct any drills of any sort at these open gyms.  He didn't tell anybody what to do.  That's what I've been told and have zero reason not to believe them.  Then, a student not on the basketball team felt left out when the basketball team wouldn't allow him to join in the game and wrote a "concerned student" letter to the University.

What else is going on here Dave??  I would love to hear it.

AndOne

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 01:43:17 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on June 15, 2017, 01:38:21 PM
Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 01:21:20 PM
Pitino at Louisville gets suspended for 5 games for turning a blind eye to prostitutes being offered to prospective recruits while Semling gets suspended 3 times as long for observing some open gyms. Good job making sense NCAA.  What a joke.

I think the school actually suspended Semling, not the NCAA. I could be wrong though,yet you make a good point.

Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

Yes... the school actually suspended Semling, not the NCAA. We are still waiting to hear what the NCAA has to say on the UWSP case.

Both violations are actually "failing to monitor" a program... but in two very different divisions. Division I has its infractions committee and Division III has its. Division I has it's priorities and rules. Division III has its. Division I actually went after the operations guy pretty aggressively and Pitino for now overseeing that employee properly. Semling is both the coach and the operations guy in this case... so you could argue he is being targeted aggressively as a result. And, UWSP and Semling are repeat offenders on the same violation - illegal practices. Louisville and Pitino are not repeat offenders on this particular violation.

I will also add, this is Division III. The priorities here, especially by rule of the presidents, are very different. Illegal practices before the season begins or during the off-season is something that Division III has never allowed to slide. Trying to compare that to a punishment of strippers during the recruiting process at a Division I school isn't exactly the same. Keep it to the Division III side... that's where we should focus. Louisville is just a distraction from a different division and a different committee.
Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 03:01:09 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 02:18:24 PM
Maybe in your eyes it is worse... but remember that Division I and Division III have different rules, for starters, on how their divisions are to be run. Secondly, who runs things and why they make certain decisions are different. There is no way in any scenario that the penalties are level. None. Recruiting, for starters, is on a completely different level. Secondly as I said before, presidents have much more say or "power" in Division III (they have it in Division I, but they are looking at different sent of financial numbers than Division III, obviously).

To try and make things level is not even something to consider, to be blunt. Nothing is level, why should penalties? Furthermore, Division I has a ton of different practice allowances that Division III does not have for GOOD reason (you know, students and not paying for students tuition through athletic scholarships). Illegal practices is a major no-no in Division III... especially for repeat offenders. Trying to say that strippers at Division I compares doesn't help the conversation at our level.

Ok, after your first sentence...I'm done talking with you on the subject.   In my eyes, an actual illegal act of providing prostitutes to recruits is worse than a coach observing some kids playing basketball.  Yes...only my eyes can see that.

Dave--

Thank you for the differentiation between how things are viewed between D1 and D3. I do think Tomt has a point in that it's hard to imagine anything more serious than providing prostitutes to recruits. But, as you say, D1 to D3 is not apples to apples even though maybe it should be. :-\
Right or wrong, I suspect 💰💰💰 might have something to do with the difference.

Tomt--
I sense you may be overlooking two points in your defense of Semling.

1. Like it or not, as Dave points out, there are major differences in how things are looked at between D1 and D3. (I'm not defending it, but that IS how it is).

2. You seem to be concentrating on the prostitution angle, and neglecting 2 important points.

A) - The same violations were committed over the 5 year period of 2011-2012 through 2015-2016. It was not a one time occurrence.
B) - Semling was determined to have not only been observing over the examined period of time, but to have also been directing/coaching, which, as I think you know, is strictly prohibited.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

As AndOne has pointed out... the investigation has revealed (what has already been reported when he was suspended) that Semling was doing more than observing. It was also revealed that recruits were taking part in these "observed practices" which is a MAJOR no-no as well as the not-allowed practices.

I understand people have talked to players and those involved. We had a former player on Hoopsville shortly after Semling was suspended. Unfortunately, that former player wasn't able to answer questions like did Semling instruction during those "observations" and whether recruits took part. Basically, most of the questions we asked where we wanted insight on what was going on ... we got, "I can't talk about" that as a response.

You can catch up with what the NCAA has reportedly found here: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2017/01/uw-stevens-point-bob-semling-suspended-postseason-ban

Again, I suspect the larger report will be out soon, but I am not sure what the timing is anymore.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Let me also address something else brought up - that the AD somehow gave Semling permission
Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 03:45:47 PM
Semling followed the direction of the old Athletic Director when he told Semling observing open gyms was fine.

First off... I believe the investigation has, so far, revealed that this isn't necessary true... or at least the final report will reveal this wasn't necessarily true. I believe the final report will reveal that both Semling and the AD were in the wrong to some degree, but without the report I am only speculating based on information I have gathered behind the scenes.

However, the second part is the most important: even if an AD approved something that was not allowed, that doesn't give the coach or the program a pass. We learned that most recently in the Thomas More women's basketball case. The head coach mistakenly assumed Sydney Moss staying at an assistant coach's house was okay because of the previous relationship the two had (Moss knew the assistant coach since middle school and they both considered the other family). When the head coach had a conversation(s) about it with his AD, the AD also felt things were okay and initially approved, or at least didn't disapprove, of the decision. That, like this, would be the AD giving "approval" for something and thus the blame one would think would head up the food chain.

That is not how it is seen in the eyes of the NCAA, especially in Division III  (and the Louisville reveals this as well). Ultimately, the coach is responsible for his or her program even if the AD or someone higher gives incorrect advice or directive. Each coach is tasked with knowing the rules and regulations of Division III and running their program accordingly. Plain and simple. They go to conferences where rules are reviewed and such.

So, it doesn't matter if the AD approved something or not. It doesn't matter if the AD instructed or not. It doesn't matter if the AD ordered he conduct illegal practices. A coach in that situation should know better. Compounded by the fact that UWSP had already come under scrutiny and an investigation (reported by their own AD at the time; different AD than Montgomery who was there for this last infraction) and UWSP is in what appears to be a LOT of trouble.

My gut feeling is the former AD and Semling are going to face some stiff penalties from the NCAA. The question is whether his school-ordered suspension for the rest of the year will be good enough in the eyes of the NCAA (Division III's infraction committee, remember). I think this report is going to reveal a lot of things that might surprise some people.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

AndOne

Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 03:21:33 PM
Well... you also say "observing" kids ... when I think everyone understands the UWSP case isn't about "observing."

Listen, I don't like the idea of prostitutes being handed to recruits at all. Don't get confused that I am either defending Louisville or some how condoning it. If we are talking about that specific case, then I have a lot of thoughts including wishing Pitino got more games.

My problem is trying to compare the cases and the divisions. That's where I disagree and am trying to stress that by doing so we only make this more confusing. Stick to DIII in terms of the UWSP case. DI has no standing nor comparison.

What exactly is this case all about then??  I know you've had plenty of conversations about this case with higher ups.  I've had conversations with the players that were there.  I go by their word.  Semling followed the direction of the old Athletic Director when he told Semling observing open gyms was fine. Semling did not direct any drills of any sort at these open gyms.  He didn't tell anybody what to do. That's what I've been told and have zero reason not to believe them.  Then, a student not on the basketball team felt left out when the basketball team wouldn't allow him to join in the game and wrote a "concerned student" letter to the University.

What else is going on here Dave??  I would love to hear it.

Tomt,

1. "I've had conversations with the players that were there. I go by their word."
C'mon man. Do you really think the players are going to say anything they know will hurt their coach??
2. As to your assertion Semling didn't direct drills or tell anyone what to do, please refer to the statement of Athletic Director Brad Duckworth who stated "the program committed four major violations between the 2011-12 and 2015-16 seasons. The most significant violation concerns illegal practices held outside the institution's declared playing and practice season." Seems like such a statement/admission from the AD pretty much seals that question.
3. *As far as a non basketball team member not being allowed to play with the team guys, no argument can be advanced because that is exactly what OPEN GYM means. Anyone who shows up can play-----because it is NOT an organized practice during the official basketball season. Big difference between the concept of off season OPEN gym and organized in-season basketball team practice.  ;)

tomt4525

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 04:29:56 PM
Let me also address something else brought up - that the AD somehow gave Semling permission
Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 03:45:47 PM
Semling followed the direction of the old Athletic Director when he told Semling observing open gyms was fine.

First off... I believe the investigation has, so far, revealed that this isn't necessary true... or at least the final report will reveal this wasn't necessarily true. I believe the final report will reveal that both Semling and the AD were in the wrong to some degree, but without the report I am only speculating based on information I have gathered behind the scenes.

However, the second part is the most important: even if an AD approved something that was not allowed, that doesn't give the coach or the program a pass. We learned that most recently in the Thomas More women's basketball case. The head coach mistakenly assumed Sydney Moss staying at an assistant coach's house was okay because of the previous relationship the two had (Moss knew the assistant coach since middle school and they both considered the other family). When the head coach had a conversation(s) about it with his AD, the AD also felt things were okay and initially approved, or at least didn't disapprove, of the decision. That, like this, would be the AD giving "approval" for something and thus the blame one would think would head up the food chain.

That is not how it is seen in the eyes of the NCAA, especially in Division III  (and the Louisville reveals this as well). Ultimately, the coach is responsible for his or her program even if the AD or someone higher gives incorrect advice or directive. Each coach is tasked with knowing the rules and regulations of Division III and running their program accordingly. Plain and simple. They go to conferences where rules are reviewed and such.

So, it doesn't matter if the AD approved something or not. It doesn't matter if the AD instructed or not. It doesn't matter if the AD ordered he conduct illegal practices. A coach in that situation should know better. Compounded by the fact that UWSP had already come under scrutiny and an investigation (reported by their own AD at the time; different AD than Montgomery who was there for this last infraction) and UWSP is in what appears to be a LOT of trouble.

My gut feeling is the former AD and Semling are going to face some stiff penalties from the NCAA. The question is whether his school-ordered suspension for the rest of the year will be good enough in the eyes of the NCAA (Division III's infraction committee, remember). I think this report is going to reveal a lot of things that might surprise some people.

I'm not bringing up the AD's part in this to make it sound like Semling wasn't at fault because of it.  I brought it up more because Semling is facing all the scrutiny while Montgomery leaves the situation and gets zero reprimand.  That is wrong.

I listened to Alex Richard's interview as it was going on, although unfortunate that we didn't get answers from him that day, I don't think we could have expected it.  The news had just broken and I'm sure he was advised not to answer many of the questions we are asking ourselves right now.

tomt4525

Quote from: AndOne on June 15, 2017, 04:41:04 PM
Quote from: tomt4525 on June 15, 2017, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 03:21:33 PM
Well... you also say "observing" kids ... when I think everyone understands the UWSP case isn't about "observing."

Listen, I don't like the idea of prostitutes being handed to recruits at all. Don't get confused that I am either defending Louisville or some how condoning it. If we are talking about that specific case, then I have a lot of thoughts including wishing Pitino got more games.

My problem is trying to compare the cases and the divisions. That's where I disagree and am trying to stress that by doing so we only make this more confusing. Stick to DIII in terms of the UWSP case. DI has no standing nor comparison.

What exactly is this case all about then??  I know you've had plenty of conversations about this case with higher ups.  I've had conversations with the players that were there.  I go by their word.  Semling followed the direction of the old Athletic Director when he told Semling observing open gyms was fine. Semling did not direct any drills of any sort at these open gyms.  He didn't tell anybody what to do. That's what I've been told and have zero reason not to believe them.  Then, a student not on the basketball team felt left out when the basketball team wouldn't allow him to join in the game and wrote a "concerned student" letter to the University.

What else is going on here Dave??  I would love to hear it.

Tomt,

1. "I've had conversations with the players that were there. I go by their word."
C'mon man. Do you really think the players are going to say anything they know will hurt their coach??
2. As to your assertion Semling didn't direct drills or tell anyone what to do, please refer to the statement of Athletic Director Brad Duckworth who stated "the program committed four major violations between the 2011-12 and 2015-16 seasons. The most significant violation concerns illegal practices held outside the institution's declared playing and practice season." Seems like such a statement/admission from the AD pretty much seals that question.
3. *As far as a non basketball team member not being allowed to play with the team guys, no argument can be advanced because that is exactly what OPEN GYM means. Anyone who shows up can play-----because it is NOT an organized practice during the official basketball season. Big difference between the concept of off season OPEN gym and organized in-season basketball team practice.  ;)

1.  I'm not getting into why I would believe their word...It's more than just a passer by conversation that I've had with some of the players.
2.  Refer to 1, I don't care what Duckworth said.  He wasn't there, he's going off the words of a student not allowed to play in their open gym and felt spited.  This is a he said/she said situation.  I'm believing the people I've talked to.
3.  Are you really going to be that dumb??  Have you ever been in a competitive open gym setting where a kid wants to play but doesn't have the skill level to participate??  I wouldn't want them to jump in either.  Is it not possible that some of the players took charge themselves and treated it as their own captain's practices??  Seems plausible to me and a good reason why they wouldn't allow just anybody to jump into their games.