Quote from: theseguysaregood on February 08, 2007, 10:42:55 PM
Anyone have the tiebreaker details or a link to the conference site (if there is one)?  As I look at the standings and remaining schedules, I would give it better than 50/50 that it comes down to tiebreakers for the 4th spot.

http://www.cciw.org/

Quote from: usee on February 08, 2007, 10:17:48 PM

Quote from: Sideliner on February 08, 2007, 07:18:04 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 08, 2007, 02:33:21 AM

Quote from: mr_b on February 07, 2007, 10:55:02 PMCongratulations to the Vikings on their "lucky 13th" win.

And kudos to Mark Erickson for being the only NPU fan brave enough to post on CCIW Chat back in November that the Vikings would have a winning season in 2006-07. If there was a thumbs-up smiley, I'd give you one, Mark.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PM
Man does it feel good to win a close one at home!

Amen and amen. The Vikings have been totally snakebit in the crackerbox since the holidays. I was almost surprised that they managed to pull off the win at home, whereas I would've felt much more comfortable down the stretch if the game was on the road.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PMIt was ugly basketbal for a solid 2/3 of the game, and North Central benefitted from that more often than not.  North Park made more stupid mistakes, and gave up unforced turnovers than usual, which was extremely frustrating.  The North Central big men just killed us tonight.  I haven't seen the box score but I can't imagine they have less than twice the rebounds North Park (as a team) has (and I mean just the 3 big guys, Krumtinger, Simmons, and Walton), and they easily have 3/4 of the Cardinals points combined.  They just owned us, plain and simple.

Surprisingly, NCC only outrebounded the Park by 33-25. Like tjcf, I thought that the disparity was much greater than that. The Cards did make the most of their advantage on the offensive boards; they led there, 11-7, but had a much wider advantage than that in terms of second-chance points, 18-5. While North Park played very good defense at times, it's just plain hard to keep up the pace on D for fifty or sixty seconds at a stretch. Some of the problem with controlling their defensive boards was the fact that NPU played a lot of zone (a no-brainer defense against a big team that lacks perimeter threats), and it's hard to put a body on people when the ball caroms out while you're in a zone. Some of the problem was the size disparity. But there was a hustle issue at work, too; North Central just wanted those rebounds more. They were even getting to the intermediate-range rebounds where you'd figure NPU's quickness would give the Vikings the advantage.

The front three of NCC scored 53 of the Cards' 68 points and pulled down 29 of their 33 rebounds. If the Redbirds had any sort of an outside game this evening, they would've won the game. With Brandon Smith out and Reid Barringer on an extremely short leash (he made a defensive miscue and was out of the game quicker than you can say "Frank Stallone"), North Central simply had no one who could keep the game honest from the perimeter. NPU doubled down on the post all night with impunity.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PMWalton really impressed me, he's composed, plays hard, and not cocky at all, he's the kind of basketball player I love to watch.

Yeah, Walton is so much fun to watch because he's so technically sound. He is always in the right spot at the right time, and he fights like a tiger on the boards. However, in spite of the 18 points and 13 rebounds he accumulated, I doubt that he'd point to tonight as his best game. He only went 7-18 from the field, which means that he had a rather unimpressive 1:1 FGA-to-points ratio. Nick Williams did a good job of guarding him, with help when Walton caught the ball down low. I thought that the star of the game for NCC was Adam Krumtinger (19 pts, 8 rebs, 8-12 from the field). Anthony Simmons (16 pts, 8 rebs) is clearly not the same player he was before his injury, but he's still better than probably 90-95% of the forwards in D3.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PMA couple of things that North Park needed to do to run away with this game (and they probably should have)... run run run.  In the starting line-up the only player who couldn't easily beat their man off the dribble was Capalbo, and he drained a couple 3's in the face of his defender, so it didn't matter.  The should have used their speed to drive to the basket all day.  The other thing is simply take care of the ball, when Simmons, Walton and Krumtinger got in foul trouble North Park wisely tried to work the ball in to the men they were guarding, but we ended up throwing it away more often then we got the pass in their.

Give the Cards credit. They did a nice job of getting back in transition. Neither team scored any fastbreak points, and NPU only scored two more points than did NCC off of turnovers. The early plan was to attack in the post, since all three North Central big men racked up two quick fouls and Drennan's absence meant that they had no experienced backup forwards available. But at the end of the game, it was North Park's quickness off the dribble, in the person of Uriah Rice, that made the difference. The basket that brought NPU to within one at 66-65 with 2:18 left, his two FTs that brought the Park back to within one at 68-67 with :53 left, and his winning bucket 35 seconds later that gave the Vikes the lead at 69-68 were all the result of Rice beating Raymond Lawrence off the dribble and taking the ball to the cup.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PMThe huge huge huge bright spot in the game was the fact that the Vikes went on a 16-0 run at one point to take a 3 point  (61-58) lead after being down by 13 (45-58) led by their 3 star freshmen Capalbo, Williams, and Stevens (along with Lenoir and Rice).  Knowing we have freshman who have the poise to take over a game like that and play with the intensity they did  is so exciting.  Hopefully they can play with that kind of intensity this Saturday against Elmhurst, we're going to need it at their place.  

I agree that it was great to see the three freshmen in the game when NPU made that big run to turn the game around, but it was actually the two seniors who were putting the ball in the basket. Anthony Lenoir made seven straight points, including a huge trey from the top of the key in which he stood there and dared NCC to come out and guard him before he took the shot, to get the comeback rolling by cutting the lead to 58-52 in favor of the Cards. And, as I noted, it was Rice who made the six crucial points in crunch time, and he also had a big trey with 4:50 left that gave NPU its first lead since the beginning of the second half. Of the 25 points the Park scored from that 58-45 deficit at the 9:03 mark onward, Lenoir scored 11 of them and Rice had 10. That's the sort of senior leadership this team had so badly needed.

Great game tonight. Tough loss if you're a Cardinals fan, but it's another solid step forward for a Vikings team that's still very much in the hunt for a CCIW tourney berth.

I think Daniel's best game of the year was his performance at the 12/30 game at Judson College.  He scored 25 points (12 - 14) and pulled down 19 rebounds in a 40 minute performance.   That's pretty impressive.

did you pull these out of the family scrapbook Mr. Walton?

All of the box scores are on the NCC website; it was easy to obtain.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 08, 2007, 02:33:21 AM

Quote from: mr_b on February 07, 2007, 10:55:02 PMCongratulations to the Vikings on their "lucky 13th" win.

And kudos to Mark Erickson for being the only NPU fan brave enough to post on CCIW Chat back in November that the Vikings would have a winning season in 2006-07. If there was a thumbs-up smiley, I'd give you one, Mark.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PM
Man does it feel good to win a close one at home!

Amen and amen. The Vikings have been totally snakebit in the crackerbox since the holidays. I was almost surprised that they managed to pull off the win at home, whereas I would've felt much more comfortable down the stretch if the game was on the road.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PMIt was ugly basketbal for a solid 2/3 of the game, and North Central benefitted from that more often than not.  North Park made more stupid mistakes, and gave up unforced turnovers than usual, which was extremely frustrating.  The North Central big men just killed us tonight.  I haven't seen the box score but I can't imagine they have less than twice the rebounds North Park (as a team) has (and I mean just the 3 big guys, Krumtinger, Simmons, and Walton), and they easily have 3/4 of the Cardinals points combined.  They just owned us, plain and simple.

Surprisingly, NCC only outrebounded the Park by 33-25. Like tjcf, I thought that the disparity was much greater than that. The Cards did make the most of their advantage on the offensive boards; they led there, 11-7, but had a much wider advantage than that in terms of second-chance points, 18-5. While North Park played very good defense at times, it's just plain hard to keep up the pace on D for fifty or sixty seconds at a stretch. Some of the problem with controlling their defensive boards was the fact that NPU played a lot of zone (a no-brainer defense against a big team that lacks perimeter threats), and it's hard to put a body on people when the ball caroms out while you're in a zone. Some of the problem was the size disparity. But there was a hustle issue at work, too; North Central just wanted those rebounds more. They were even getting to the intermediate-range rebounds where you'd figure NPU's quickness would give the Vikings the advantage.

The front three of NCC scored 53 of the Cards' 68 points and pulled down 29 of their 33 rebounds. If the Redbirds had any sort of an outside game this evening, they would've won the game. With Brandon Smith out and Reid Barringer on an extremely short leash (he made a defensive miscue and was out of the game quicker than you can say "Frank Stallone"), North Central simply had no one who could keep the game honest from the perimeter. NPU doubled down on the post all night with impunity.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PMWalton really impressed me, he's composed, plays hard, and not cocky at all, he's the kind of basketball player I love to watch.

Yeah, Walton is so much fun to watch because he's so technically sound. He is always in the right spot at the right time, and he fights like a tiger on the boards. However, in spite of the 18 points and 13 rebounds he accumulated, I doubt that he'd point to tonight as his best game. He only went 7-18 from the field, which means that he had a rather unimpressive 1:1 FGA-to-points ratio. Nick Williams did a good job of guarding him, with help when Walton caught the ball down low. I thought that the star of the game for NCC was Adam Krumtinger (19 pts, 8 rebs, 8-12 from the field). Anthony Simmons (16 pts, 8 rebs) is clearly not the same player he was before his injury, but he's still better than probably 90-95% of the forwards in D3.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PMA couple of things that North Park needed to do to run away with this game (and they probably should have)... run run run.  In the starting line-up the only player who couldn't easily beat their man off the dribble was Capalbo, and he drained a couple 3's in the face of his defender, so it didn't matter.  The should have used their speed to drive to the basket all day.  The other thing is simply take care of the ball, when Simmons, Walton and Krumtinger got in foul trouble North Park wisely tried to work the ball in to the men they were guarding, but we ended up throwing it away more often then we got the pass in their.

Give the Cards credit. They did a nice job of getting back in transition. Neither team scored any fastbreak points, and NPU only scored two more points than did NCC off of turnovers. The early plan was to attack in the post, since all three North Central big men racked up two quick fouls and Drennan's absence meant that they had no experienced backup forwards available. But at the end of the game, it was North Park's quickness off the dribble, in the person of Uriah Rice, that made the difference. The basket that brought NPU to within one at 66-65 with 2:18 left, his two FTs that brought the Park back to within one at 68-67 with :53 left, and his winning bucket 35 seconds later that gave the Vikes the lead at 69-68 were all the result of Rice beating Raymond Lawrence off the dribble and taking the ball to the cup.

Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 07, 2007, 10:57:33 PMThe huge huge huge bright spot in the game was the fact that the Vikes went on a 16-0 run at one point to take a 3 point  (61-58) lead after being down by 13 (45-58) led by their 3 star freshmen Capalbo, Williams, and Stevens (along with Lenoir and Rice).  Knowing we have freshman who have the poise to take over a game like that and play with the intensity they did  is so exciting.  Hopefully they can play with that kind of intensity this Saturday against Elmhurst, we're going to need it at their place.  

I agree that it was great to see the three freshmen in the game when NPU made that big run to turn the game around, but it was actually the two seniors who were putting the ball in the basket. Anthony Lenoir made seven straight points, including a huge trey from the top of the key in which he stood there and dared NCC to come out and guard him before he took the shot, to get the comeback rolling by cutting the lead to 58-52 in favor of the Cards. And, as I noted, it was Rice who made the six crucial points in crunch time, and he also had a big trey with 4:50 left that gave NPU its first lead since the beginning of the second half. Of the 25 points the Park scored from that 58-45 deficit at the 9:03 mark onward, Lenoir scored 11 of them and Rice had 10. That's the sort of senior leadership this team had so badly needed.

Great game tonight. Tough loss if you're a Cardinals fan, but it's another solid step forward for a Vikings team that's still very much in the hunt for a CCIW tourney berth.

I think Daniel's best game of the year was his performance at the 12/30 game at Judson College.  He scored 25 points (12 - 14) and pulled down 19 rebounds in a 40 minute performance.   That's pretty impressive.

Quote from: veterancciwfan on February 01, 2007, 12:40:33 AM

Regarding the IWU/NCC game at Shirk: It is mindboggling to me how a team that was so good last year and had so many talented juniors returning could go downhill to the extent NCC obviously has this year. NCC looked listless. IWU played an excellent first half and a poor second half and still won by 14. NCC played poorly both halves, scoring only 23 in the 1st half and 28 in the second. Can any NCC fan explain what the reason is for NCC's collapse this year? In my opinion, they are the biggest disappointment in the league, even more so than IWU.

NCC's collapse; hmmm, a weighty subject indeed.  This is my opinon...........

Last year's edition of the Cardinals featured the five starters and Chris Drennan.  They got the lion's share of the playing minutes, especially once CCIW play began.  The five starters had played together for three years, the last two of them together as a starting unit.  By the end of the last season, those six players had melded together into a nice basketball team, peaking exactly at the right time.    That team defeated both Elmhurst and Auggie at the end of the season and then bested Elmhurst and Wesleyan in the conference tournament.  Both starting guards have since graduated.

North Central entered this season with two senior guards that saw limited playing time last year, two freshman guard candidates, and the seasoned front line (other players continue and more freshman have joined the program, however this first group has become the mainstay of this year's North Central varsity team).  I believe that a part of the difficulty with this year's edition of the NCC Cardinal team is getting enough time playing to meld into a cohesive unit like last year's team was able to do (that was a two to three year program).  

Talented and capable they are as a team.  Auggie came to Naperville and the Cardinals went toe to toe with them for forty minutes.  The game was decided on an Adam Krumtinger shot at the buzzer that missed. (my heart wants me to whine about the "no call", but my brain is in charge and it knows better – if  you don't want the game to be decided by a call (or a no call in this case) don't allow yourself to be in that position).  But as a basketball fan, I'd pay to see that game again.     A second example is the NCC at Elmhurst game last week.  For three quarters of the game, it was akin to the Auggie game.  A toe to toe, head to head, hard fought contest.   With about seven minutes to go in the game, the officiating crew started to affect the outcome.   If you take away the three technical fouls (six points, not gimme's by any means, the Elmhurst players had to make the shots) it puts the ballgame at about 8 points.  Also, three out of the four NCC big guys had fouled out in that same period of time (hmmmm); even if you don't whine about the officiating, one can make an argument that if all four of the NCC big men were allowed to finish the game, that game would have been a mighty fine contest to watch, win or loose.    Ok, that's two games.

Anybody who only saw Wednesday's game in Bloomington would call me nuts for my previous paragraph. The Cardinals turned the ball over 15 times in the first half alone; with less than four minutes to go in the first half, NCC only had 13 points on the scoreboard.  The second half was not quite as bad for the Cardinals, but what a contrast to the Auggie or Elmhurst performances.    The rest of the season has been somewhere in between those extremes; up and down performances in games and from game to game.  

The NCC coaching staff must be scratching their heads, looking for an answer.  

Clearly, the Cardinals are capable of making another run in the CCIW conference tournament.  It will be an uphill battle for them at this point, but it will all come down to their collective performances in the second half of the CCIW season.  They need to prove that they can compete together for forty minutes in each remaining game.  If they can't prove that, they will be watching other teams play in the CCIW post season tournament.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 30, 2007, 03:26:32 AM

Quote from: dennis_prikkel on January 29, 2007, 01:30:55 PMI wish my alma mater well on Wednesday night, but I fear this is another game with 'no cigar' written all over it at the end.

Since your alma mater has been doing quite well this season in the face of your persistent doubt, those of us who share your alma mater who are just a wee bit superstitious heartily endorse both your absence from the crackerbox and your continual naysaying of the Vikings.

Quote from: dennis_prikkel on January 29, 2007, 01:30:55 PMAs for the stats from last Saturday's win at Millikin - I obviously did not see the game - and I'm betting there weren't many who did - but I have to suggest that perhaps the stat crew also missed their wake-up call.  The low number of assists and turnovers for both teams in an overtime game, between two squads who normally throw it around a lot, leaves me questioning the stat sheet, other than the final score.

On the contrary, the low numbers of assists and turnovers are completely understandable. First, Millikin is third and NPU is fourth in the conference in turnover margin, and neither team is exaggeratedly high in terms of team turnovers by CCIW standards. In terms of Saturday's game, NPU's 13 turnovers were only two under the team's average in CCIW play. Millikin, on the other hand, turned the ball over 21 times -- and that's over seven turnovers more than the Big Blue averages per game. Second, NPU is seventh and Millikin is eighth in the league in assists. Both teams are much more adept at beating opponents off the dribble and taking the ball to the basket than they are at scoring via ball reversal, screens, and cuts. In other words, while the assist totals were low, these are the two teams in the CCIW most likely to run up low assist totals in a game.

Quote from: Sideliner on January 29, 2007, 11:01:32 PMI'd like to know what avenue exists to hold Jerry Scherzinger accountable for his behavior.

Each referee is evaluated by the coaches. The CCIW supervisor of officials takes these evaluations very seriously with regard to the ongoing certification of officials used by the league. In addition, each head coach has recourse to blocking (I think) one official per year from working his team's games.

If Jerry Scherzinger made an obscene gesture to a fan while on the court, and it gets back to CCIW officials supervisor Ken Maziarka, Scherzinger's tenure as a CCIW referee could be in jeopardy

Gregory, we'll see if Ken can do something about Jerry's performance.  Thanks for the tip.

(modified by GS for quote formatting)

Quote from: Fox 40 on January 27, 2007, 11:06:30 AM

Quote from: AndOne on January 27, 2007, 02:46:21 AM
And 2 final thoughts on officiating so far this year-----

1. I just love it when the trailing ref who is standing 6-7 feet over the center court line and just inside the right sideline calls a foul on a play that takes place along the baseline 4-5 feet to the left of the basket. Especially when the baseline ref doesn't see any foul. I've seen that happen a couple of times in every game I've been to this year. Not sure how many feet away that is, but you would have to have bionic eyes to see a foul that far away.

2. Numerio uno this year. The ref who has just made a terrible call is standing on the foul line during a time out called just after he whistled the foul. One of the fans of the offending team shouts something at the ref---not complementary to be sure, but also not profane in any way---and the ref, who clearly hears whats said, points up at the fan, and then quickly down at his crotch!     Happened Wed night.   
Sometimes the refs get the abuse they ask for.

AndOne,

In reference to scenario #1, I'm assuming that your refering to a three person crew in which case that is tough to watch.  If it is a two person crew then the likely chances of the trail official making that call are much greater.

In scenario #2, let's hope that an officiating supervisor reviews game tape on a regular basis and that official is "relieved" of his duties.

(modified by GS for quote formatting)

I have watched many sporting events, mostly basketball, from the park district level through professional ranks.  I have seen many bad calls and I have seen many referees make and continue to make bad calls.  And I know that the use of the "bad call" description can be somewhat subjective.  I have seen my teams loose games at the very end because of a "bad call" and I'm sure my teams have won some games because of what fans of the other team would term a "bad call".   I do not whine about such things.  Rather, I fall in line with Elmhurst_Mom's husband.  You can't allow your team to be in a position at the end of the game where the call may decide the outcome

In any event, in all of those instances of "bad calls", I have come away with the feeling that the referee made the call, right or wrong in my mind, because he saw it (or thought he saw it) that way.  For the very first time I saw a referee make calls that I had the feeling had nothing to do with what he actually saw on the court.

Jerry Scherzinger caught the eye of the NCC fans because of several of his calls in the second half.  I was sitting in the stands with the NCC parents and students.  A group of us stood up and pointed at him to display our displeasure with the calls he was making.  As AndOne previously reported, Jerry responded with the lewd gesture.  After the Simmons technical foul and then the second technical foul on the NCC coach, I had the feeling that something just wasn't right with Jerry's calls.   I talked with the NCC head coach after the game to find out what happened and what he might have said to deserve the technical foul.  Evidently, Jerry said something to the NCC bench as he passed by, the coach didn't hear what was said and was following Jerry to ask him to repeat it.  The coach told me that he asked repeatedly, but Jerry would not respond, except with the technical fouls.

It was curious to me that a referee would call a technical foul because a coach asked for him to repeat himself.  I spent a couple days talking to folks who were closer to the bench and might have heard what Jerry said.  I did not actually hear what Jerry said, but from the report I heard from a third party (which I cannot repeat here), what was said was not only unprofessional, it was wrong.  I'm sure there was no way Jerry was going to repeat himself in an area where even more people could here that statement.  He certainly had reason to hide what he had said just a few seconds earlier.

I'd like to know what avenue exists to hold Jerry Scherzinger accountable for his behavior.  No one can prove his motive, but his actions and words were in line with someone who was making calls on the basis of revenge, rather than what he was seeing on the court.  Anyone can do what I did, talk to those involved, find out exactly what was said by whom and to whom.  I did not find any reason for the last two technical fouls; perhaps it was Jerry's way of "getting back" at someone.

The NCC coach's actions were certainly understandable; Jerry Scherzinger was the classless one.