Worlds Colliding

If you come to this space often, you know it's usually my ramblings about theology or pop culture or some conglomeration of the two. These interests make up two third of my topical love triangle. Today, we're going to include the third leg I've largely kept separate: NCAA Division III basketball. It's an odd hobby to be sure, but a good one. Division III athletes play for the love of the game; there are no athletic scholarships. They also usually really smart kids who go on to do interesting and important things in life. It's pure sport without all the commercialization that sometimes makes fandom conflicting.

I'm bringing these elements of my life together for a number of reasons - first, we had a big snowstorm this weekend, my schedule is all thrown off and I needed something for the Tuesday morning post. Second, and maybe more importantly, it seems like a good venue to out myself as a D3hoops.com Top 25 Poll voter. A few people know I've been voting in the men's poll for a couple years, but that secret seems harder and harder to keep and there's really no reason to do so any longer.

You see, this Tuesday coincides with the first poll of the year in which I feel entirely comfortable. That's not to say I've taken previous weeks lightly. I generally spend 3-4 hours each week on my ballot, not including the games I try to catch on internet broadcasts throughout the week. It's just that, especially this topsy-turvy year - there's been a lot of guesswork. I admire Dave McHugh's bravery for making his ballot public each week (and I'll try to do it more often in the future), but I'd have a hard time explaining that sometimes, despite my best efforts, there isn't always a logical reason for choosing teams in various positions.

This week, though, it feels right to at least explain my reasoning. I've been hesitant to make myself public as a voter because I'm also a D3hoops.com columnist and I didn't want the players and coaches I speak with to be influenced by that status. I've come to realize, though, that this really isn't likely. They've all got more important things to worry about - like winning games.

First, a couple notes about my philosophy on voting. Record matters to me. I do take into account who teams beat and who they lost to, and I'll make considerations for certain circumstances (injuries, context, etc), but generally there has to be real extenuating circumstances for me to ignore record, either good or bad. I tend to discount (but not ignore) the first game of the year, big rivalry games, and those warm-weather holiday tournaments over Christmas. I also pay attention to how teams are winning games and I try my best to watch every team play. That last one is near impossible, even with the great internet streams that exist today, but I do sometimes rely on the eye-test, when I just can't, in good conscience, ignore it.

Without further ado, my D3hoops.com Men's Top 25 Ballot for Week 7 (games through 1/24/2016):

1. Augustana - They were my preseason pick and they remain the strongest team in the country. Returning the whole team from their national runner-up campaign, their only loss was by two points in overtime, on the road, to one of the best teams in the nation, playing at it's absolute peak. They have a consistently challenging schedule and they went on the road. It's a safe pick, yes, but certainly earned.

2. Benedictine - I seriously considered them for #1, as I have the past three or four weeks. This is a strong team that has yet to lose. They went 5-0 against the CCIW, one of the best conferences in the country and they've been winning games quite handily. They also haven't been afraid to go on the road. This is more of a 1a designation than a #2. If and when Augie loses again, they'll be my #1 vote, assuming they remain undefeated.

3. Whitworth - I've been a Whitworth fan for a long time, usually giving them a higher ranking than the overall poll. I had them preseason #2. I've also gotten to see them quite often (what can I say, I'm a night owl) and while it's a strong, formidable team, I see enough weaknesses to give me pause. The undefeated record gets them this high, because it deserves respect, but I'd like to see them shore up their on-court consistency before tournament time.

4. John Carroll - Again, an undefeated team with a strong schedule. I moved them up this week because they've now run through the first half of their conference without blemish, and it's a tough conference. The style of play lends itself to slip-ups from time to time, but they aren't showing that same head-scratching anomalies we've seen on the results page in previous years. Besides, they haven't lost yet.

5. St. Thomas - I got to see the Tommies in person at the Hoopsville Classic in November. I was very impressed by their leadership, discipline and depth. This is a team that could very well be #1. I think they may be a little better than JCU, but it's close enough that I let the record break the tie.

6. Elmhurst - I was one of the voters naming Elmhurst #1 the last couple weeks, largely on the strength of the Augustana win. This is a very good team, but we're now starting to see some inconsistency break out. North Central is a good squad (as you'll see below), but losing by that margin (18) means a drop in the polls.

7. Susquehanna - I have not seen this team in person, but I have watched them online. It is my region, so there may be some bias creeping in, but they've got a strong schedule, even if there aren't any huge names on it. The eye test plays a little role here, but with only one loss (t to a Drew team that is better than its record) it makes sense to have them here.

8. Alma - This is certainly my biggest reach. I don't like putting a four loss team this high and in doing so I'm overlooking weak performances in the first two games of the season, but none of those four losses is truly bad and they've got wins over three Top 25 teams and two others getting votes, not to mention beating the three best opponents in their conference in one week, two of those games on the road. I'm willing to make this gamble.

9. Ohio Wesleyan - This is a one loss team who handily defeated the four loss squad above them. I know, I know, I'm breaking my first rule. This team might be among the most talented in the country and, early, they were playing like it. The conference grind, however, is wearing them down a bit and with questions about their depth, it makes sense to use caution. Also, this schedule that looked so dominant at first, turns out to be less so. This is a team I like a lot, which might mean I'm overcompensating for bias, but #9 is still pretty good and they'll have plenty of chances to prove themselves on the floor before season's end.

10. Chicago - I may have been thrown off of this team early because of Dave's unabashed love for them over the last two seasons, but they've won me over with play on the floor. No losses since November and they've survived a couple UAA road trips already. The talent is apparent and the results are proof.

11. Hope - I, like many others, liked how they looked early, but those wins in Wisconsin seems less impressive now and I'm less likely to give them a break for inconsistent play in the middle of the season. Their best win at this point might be Trine and they've lost two games.

12. Marietta - I was not sold on this team. I'm not sure I'm sold yet, but they only have two losses and the schedule isn't weak. Without the loss to St. Vincent, I'd have them above Hope.

13. Christopher Newport - I was very high in this team early, but with a weak ODAC and the struggles of Scranton, the only team to beat them, the schedule is much less impressive than it initially appeared. I'm going to see them in person in a couple weeks, maybe that will change my mind, but right now they're not beating teams the way I'd want a top 10 team to be doing it.

14. Johnson & Wales - I liked this team a lot last year; I was looking for an excuse to vote them in at #25 towards the end of the season and I just couldn't justify it. This year they're beating teams handily and showing real senior leadership. They will likely end the season with both a 2000 and a 1500 point scorers on the roster. They'd be undefeated without a 2500 mile road loss in the opener and they're beating their weak schedule the way you'd expect a contending team to do it.

15. North Central - Here's my other stretch. This team has five losses, but four of them are to higher ranked team and the fifth was a three point November road loss to a team now receiving votes. They've beaten a number of mid-level teams and really put the smack down on Elmhurst this week. There's a lot of weakness in this squad, but there also aren't a lot of teams with super strong resumes to be here.

16. Lancaster Bible - I hate to put an unknown team from a terrible conference this far up, but they're undefeated and they deserve it. Like Johnson & Wales they're beating up an even worse conference handily. They also beat F&M by 30. I don't consider Franklin & Marshall to be a Top 25 squad, but they're close - they also play a balanced style that specifically precludes getting blown out. That win was really impressive. Barely squeaking by Cairn over the holidays scares me, but they deserve to be mentioned among the best in the country. Hopefully they'll get a chance to prove their worth in the tournament this year.

17. Amherst - The Lord Jeffs brought back their whole roster, but I wasn't super impressed with it last year. They played a pretty weak schedule out of conference and have now lost three times without any sort of signature performance. They might even be higher than they should be on the list strictly from name recognition.

18. WPI - This team is talented and plays good defense, but they've shown remarkable inconsistency this year, a hallmark you don't often see in a Bartley squad. The non-conference season was really good, but they seem to be struggling of late.

19. St. Norbert - I've never liked how highly this team has been ranked over its recent run. Yes, they're good and they're winning games, but I've always felt them a little overrated. This year's schedule is pretty strong and they just destroyed a Carroll squad that was getting votes. 14-2 is 14-2 and it's not like they haven't had recent success. The MWC is bad this year, but the Green Knights are doing as much as can be expected of them.

20. Roanoke - At one point this season I turned in a ballot without an ODAC, WIAC, or NJAC team on it, which is pretty amazing given the quality of those conferences in most years. Roanoke is the only team from those conferences on my ballot this time around, largely because of the record. Virginia Wesleyan in their best win, and it's not that great a win this year, still the team is strong and playing well in a conference that is always deep, even if it's down at the top this year.

21. Plattsburgh State - One of these SUNYAC teams had to get in and Plattsburgh is the best of the bunch right now. I'm not sure it's a Top 25 team, but when you compare them to the teams below them, the losses are a little easier to stomach.

22. Salisbury - I saw Salisbury in person in November; I saw them again in January. The November team was Top 12 worthy, the January team is, well, here. They're struggling to play well, I think partially because they have too many guys who deserve minutes. The talent is there, but the performance is lacking of late.

23. Penn State-Behrend - Yep, it's a good team in a bad conference with no real statement wins. Still, they've got a history of doing well and those UAA wins (over Case and Carnegie Mellon) are good enough for me to let them in. At some point, winning is all you can do and they avenged their one loss to LaRoche this week, on the road, with gusto.

24. Gettysburg - Here's the one pick I definitely got wrong. I felt like one of the three-loss Centennial teams deserved to get in. F&M is clearly more talented, but I saw them in person last week and they just weren't playing up to par. If the Swarthmore-Gettysburg matchup hadn't been postponed by the snow, I would've known Swarthmore was the better choice, but I had to go with my gut and it was wrong. This is a good team, but probably not yet Top 25 worthy.

25. Whitman - I considered fifteen teams for this slot, all of them worthy, but none of them super impressive. Whitman came out on top because they seem to have the fewest negatives, but obviously I could be wrong here as well.


I don't mind questions or comments as we go along and I would be happy to give my impression of any team so you'd know where I stand. I'm out now, so I suppose those questions and criticism will be coming more often. I welcome any positive and open conversation.

Paying Student Athletes

When I was younger, my family lived in Northern Vermont. We could not get cable at our house, so we survived with a large antenna on the roof and five channels - ABC, CBS, FOX, CBC, and something in French, also from Canada. We could get NBC, but it was incredibly fuzzy and often the audio would go in and out.

I have early memories of watching Michael Jordan win NBA finals games through a haze of static with my youngest brother yelling "Michael Me, Michael Me" at the top of his lungs (my brother's name is Jordan).

My first college sports memory is North Carolina's men's basketball championship in 1993. I was eleven by then, but as the oldest child in a non-sports watching household, I had to discover everything for myself. I remember seeing giant, awkward Eric Montross hugging his sweaty teammates (Montross later went on to play for the Boston Celtics wearing the immortal single zero uniform number - that always makes me smile for some reason). I couldn't root for North Carolina, though, they were the bad guys and I liked the Michigan Fab Five, whom they beat.

I liked the Fab Five mostly because I like when things happen that haven't happened before - and five freshman starting in the National Championship game was pretty unique.

All of this is prelude to something that probably should have been said in one sentence at the top. The first players I really resonated with in college basketball were Tyus Edney and Ed O'Bannon (along with Toby Bailey) on the 1995 UCLA championship team. While it was Lute Olson's Arizona Wildcat champions two years later who really grabbed my attention (and my loyalty), the UCLA team was the first one I rooted for because of some mystical attachment to the players.

Fast forward far too many years, Ed O'Bannon is the lead plaintiff in a class action suit filed by former college athletes against the NCAA. They're suing for compensation and control of the rights to their own likenesses - in video games and such.

The NCAA makes a lot of money licensing players' likenesses for video games and advertisement, even merchandise sales. They try to skirt the issue by not including specific names, but as an avid fan of EASports' College Football '97 for SEGA Genesis, I can tell you almost every actual college player is on that game, even if their names are absent - right down to Alex Van Pelt leading the explosive Nevada Wolfpack offense which you can use to upset an unsuspecting opponent who says, "fine, I'll play with you, but you have to choose a bad team."

This lawsuit has added current players and gotten permission to proceed through the court system. It's been legitimized. They may not win, but the NCAA is going to have fight it. The lawsuit has also lead to a larger discussion of the economics of college sports and whether a scholarship is enough compensation for players (mostly men's basketball and football) who raise significant revenue for their schools.

This week, a number of college football players have written messages on their pads and arm bands to stand in solidarity with the group working to secure increased benefits.

It's a difficult issue. For many of us who paid (and are still paying) for college, the idea of room and board with a small stipend for living expense sounds like a plum deal. Of course, these athletes are essentially banned from working other jobs. There are limits on who they work for and the huge time constraints of major college sports make anything beyond a small work-study position impossible.

The Athletic Departments of major football school rake in a lot of money, selling outrageously priced tickets and merchandise and whatnot. However, they also spend a lot of money, which means, in the end, only a couple dozen schools even end up in the black at the end of the year. Under the current model, there's very little money to give.

I support the O'Bannon lawsuit, not because I have warm feelings for Ed O'Bannon (though I do), but because it makes sense that students who can make money from their image, whether in commercial endorsements or other means, should be able to do so. They may be getting paid because of their ability to play, but they're not being paid to play - I recognize that's a fine line, but it's an important one.

The NCAA is already speaking out of both sides of their mouth there anyway. A guy can get drafted into baseball, sign a $2 million dollar contract, then decide baseball isn't for him, head back to college and be allowed to play football. Yet, a decade or so ago, Colorado football player Jeremy Bloom, who was also an Olympic level skier, wasn't allowed to sign modeling or endorsement contracts (which arose only because he's a famous skier and had nothing to do with his mediocre football skills) and retain his college eligibility. It's capricious.

I know those rules are in place so schools can't use "endorsement" money as an under the table way to pay players. But players already choose schools based on how much exposure they'll get to tv audiences, why would considering endorsement possibilities not fit into the same category?

At the same time, I don't think student athletes deserve more than scholarships and a small stipend for playing the sport of their choice in college. An education is a valuable commodity, one that will bring with it much more than the $150,000 value of the degree over the course of a lifetime. Money sports athletes really have little to complain about when world-class athletes in other college sports have to do with half scholarships or none at all simply because there isn't a television market for their skills.

If a kid is good enough or famous enough to make some money on his image - let him do it. Treat them like any other college kid - and hold them to a high standard of academics.

The NCAA is beginning to catch on here, but it's just a drop in the bucket of ways the system needs to change. Student athletes need to be making progress towards a degree, not spending four years taking intro course in every subject under the sun. The NCAA and the schools themselves need to do a better job of holding the athletic department accountable for the education of their athletes.

Part of that could be guaranteeing an athletic scholarship for the number of credit necessary to graduate. Currently, the players get only one year guaranteed, scholarships are renewed (or not) every year. If your coach was a bad judge of talent, you pay the price, not him. If the kid is good enough to get the offer, he should be good enough to get four years of school. Mistakes in judgment should come back on those making the decisions. And, obviously, if the student can't keep up academically, they can't enroll anyway. It would also allow those players who take minimal classes while playing to take the rest of their necessary credits after their eligibility is over.

Second, athletic departments should be required to scholarship all athletes at the same level, with a minimum number of require sports for big-time football schools. One's athletic fortunes should not be dependent on the whims of TV viewers. There should also be a requirement for contributions from the athletic department to the school's general fund every year - say ten percent of revenue. Hold the athletic department accountable to benefit the school in more ways than TV exposure. They're just going to get the rich boosters to chip in the difference anyway (many schools likely have boosters giving this money already) - it won't be a big change, but it won't allow athletic departments to spend extravagantly.

It's a money game. Money runs the show. We all know that. I'm not even sure there's anything wrong with it. What's wrong is our refusal to set up measures to make sure the money is benefiting everyone. Right now, cash strapped, often desperately poor athletes from desperately poor families are getting kicked out of school for associating themselves with unseemly types just to make rent or buy food. These kids, whose athletic abilities managed to get them a chance at an education when there likely wouldn't have been any chance otherwise, are losing out on both the education and the experience because the people in power are greedy.

You don't have to pay them a salary to give them a chance. Just treat them like human beings, or, you know, any other student at the school. Or, you could just start following Division III sports, where they don't give athletic scholarships and the kids aren't actually any different from the other students at school.