AD Josh Whitman open letter on the Big Ten regular season title
- Status
FeelYourPaign
- So Cal
I like Josh's letter a lot.
And I agree with him.
But this story, which I'm presuming is true, ends it all for me. Sorry, but if you affirm the win percentage decision twice, you don't also get to complain about it.
Hunter also has a loose grip on the English language.
sbillini
- st petersburg, fl
yea, agree. if this is true, it was post the michigan shutdown announcement. if you still voted for winning %age at that point, then you're argument is pretty moot. oh well...
Deleted member 186590
D
Guest
Shannon Ryan seems to miss the whole point of the debate and had a confusing argument
"It wasn’t until Illinois saw its title chances fading that Whitman more vehemently appealed to the Big Ten and requested yet another meeting be held" - when was Illinois leading the big ten in winning %? Never - I don't think Whitman ever thought we would win based on %
If her sources are correct and Whitman voted to confirm the win % rule without any minimum games required, that would be surprising given we've been having the debate on this board on what the conference would do well before that when it was clearly a potential outcome until the March 2nd news release
Interesting.......
michigan.rivals.com
Maize&BlueReview - It Turns Out The Big Ten Title Mattered To Illinois After All
Illinois' 1989 basketball team was one of the best in its history, doing the school proud in making the Final Four ...
michigan.rivals.com
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
If Shannon Ryan's sources are correct, then I'm happy to put this to bed. But, based upon other sources of information on the topic, I would be surprised if there aren't inaccuracies in Ryan's article. Ryan's timeline of events in particular doesn't make sense.
Whitman's in a little bit of tough spot. He's said his piece through the open letter. There's no reason for him to weigh in again, especially for the sole purpose of correcting the record in response to a single newspaper article.
Win the BTT. Go deep in the NCAA tournament. Keep chopping wood.
Whitman's in a little bit of tough spot. He's said his piece through the open letter. There's no reason for him to weigh in again, especially for the sole purpose of correcting the record in response to a single newspaper article.
Win the BTT. Go deep in the NCAA tournament. Keep chopping wood.
yup. my first job outta school was with Arthur Andersen. about 1/2 my coworkers were UI guys/gals. The other half was you name it - lots of B1G schools (NW, IU, Iowa, Wiscy and Michigan) and Notre Dame and DePaul and then any and every decent school around
How did we know who the Domers were ?
they told you, without being asked, the first minute you met them.
It was uncanny. Always were guys, mostly with bad haircuts.
Have not read the article (not paying), but I am guessing her sources represent 'the Empire Striking Back' at Whitman for embarrassing it.
Is it reasonable to assume he voted for it initially and then tried to make reasonable arguments for his school's team to share the championship?
That's what I took from his letter.
Is it reasonable to assume he voted for it initially and then tried to make reasonable arguments for his school's team to share the championship?
That's what I took from his letter.
It could be true, but I will say this, in todays age more than ever, dont believe a word you read in print nor digitally.
unfortunately, so much written (and spoken) is complete crap that its been spoiled for the few writers who do a decent job.
I just dont think scUM was above board in their refusal to play 18 or 19 games. Funny how EVERYONE else sacrificed to make that happen but them
Nobody in the B1G every really anticipated a school deliberately taking the easy road to the first place spot. I mean even Nebraska did everything asked to get the season in .
We were chopping wood outside while the Michigan team was inside the cabin drinking coffee.
Last edited:
Interesting statement from the article. There is not a lot to the claim of co-champs if this is the case. The B1G could have been a little more transparent from the beginning about the criteria, but it is what it is. It doesn't make Illinois look great at this point.
I'll take Whitman's letter for what it is. A message to fire up the troops.
Last edited:
To my way of thinking, the original agreement was flawed as everyone could and should have foreseen exactly what transpired (i.e., some teams not playing a full complement of conference games). I’m a little astounded that the eventual reality wasn’t foreseen from the get-go and taken into consideration in formulating an equitable formula for determining a conference championship. That’s not the fault of the Big Ten alone, but it deserves part of the blame for lack of foresight.
In my view, the problem with the Tribune’s viewpoint is what is implicit in any such agreement and what later transpires.
As to what is implicit, I would think that a good faith attempt to play as many games as possible is implicit in any such agreement, particularly once a team takes a winning percentage lead at some point in the season. (As someone pointed out, what happens if a team starts the conference season 10 - 0 and then voluntarily or involuntarily has the remainder of its games cancelled ? Conference champion ? You can call such a result ridiculous, but that’s precisely what the rule provides, which only goes to illustrate that it is the rule which is wanting.) Look at the Big Ten season ending standings. 8 teams played 20 conference games (Illinois, Iowa, Ohio State, Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Rutgers, Wisconsin) and 5 teams played 19 (Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Nebraska, Northwestern). Even those teams with actual COVID outbreaks played at least 19 games. Michigan, which did not suffer any COVID outbreaks, only played 17.
As to what transpired later, Michigan voluntarily went on hiatus and ultimately chose not to make-up 3 games. To my way of thinking, this is nothing short of “playing the system” and violating the spirit of the agreement initially reached. Once Michigan voluntarily went on hiatus the Big Ten should, in my estimation, have stepped in and indicated either that games missed which could have been played would be deemed forfeits or that the agreement reached would be modified to allow the team or teams which had won the most conference games to be deemed co-champions with the winning percentage leader. (I’m betting that if a vote among the schools had been taken on either such alternative the vote would have been 13 - 1 in favor.)
In my view, the problem with the Tribune’s viewpoint is what is implicit in any such agreement and what later transpires.
As to what is implicit, I would think that a good faith attempt to play as many games as possible is implicit in any such agreement, particularly once a team takes a winning percentage lead at some point in the season. (As someone pointed out, what happens if a team starts the conference season 10 - 0 and then voluntarily or involuntarily has the remainder of its games cancelled ? Conference champion ? You can call such a result ridiculous, but that’s precisely what the rule provides, which only goes to illustrate that it is the rule which is wanting.) Look at the Big Ten season ending standings. 8 teams played 20 conference games (Illinois, Iowa, Ohio State, Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Rutgers, Wisconsin) and 5 teams played 19 (Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Nebraska, Northwestern). Even those teams with actual COVID outbreaks played at least 19 games. Michigan, which did not suffer any COVID outbreaks, only played 17.
As to what transpired later, Michigan voluntarily went on hiatus and ultimately chose not to make-up 3 games. To my way of thinking, this is nothing short of “playing the system” and violating the spirit of the agreement initially reached. Once Michigan voluntarily went on hiatus the Big Ten should, in my estimation, have stepped in and indicated either that games missed which could have been played would be deemed forfeits or that the agreement reached would be modified to allow the team or teams which had won the most conference games to be deemed co-champions with the winning percentage leader. (I’m betting that if a vote among the schools had been taken on either such alternative the vote would have been 13 - 1 in favor.)
Right click the link and open in a private (incognito) window.
Deleted member 747671
D
Guest
Skimmed the Tribune article. I don't know what to think. A big part of me wants to question her source(s) because I can't see Whitman releasing that if it was just to excite the fanbase. That was a strong statement against the conference, and that very rarely happens. Nebraska and Ohio State kinda did it for football, but losing an entire season is far more consequential than hanging a banner.
sbillini
- st petersburg, fl
The problem with this argument is (assuming the trib's sourcing is accurate) is you shouldn't vote to reaffirm the %age title decider on Feb 26th - at least 20 days AFTER michigan announced they would postpone the illinois game. I don't know what's factually true. why would JW pen this letter when he presumably knew that he had re-voted to affirm the winning %age and that everyone would eventually find out about that (other than, maybe, to fire up the troops)? Or the sources the trib is using are wrong? I don't know. But if the AD's did, indeed, reaffirm winning %age on Feb 26th, then time to move on.
Will give it a try. Thanks.
HoopCity
- Huntsville, AL
I agree that the Big Ten should, in my estimation, have stepped in and indicated either that games missed which could have been played should be deemed forfeits. Those teams with actual COVID outbreaks played at least 19 games. Michigan, which did not suffer any COVID outbreaks, only played 17. Why did Michigan have to go on voluntarily hiatus, they did not follow the rules as we did?
Deleted member 747671
D
Guest
I think the 17 vs 19 or 20 is the biggest issue.
How did multiple teams suffer shutdowns, Nebraska's for nearly a month, and yet everyone got to 19 or 20 games except for Michigan who were way down at 17? That makes a substantial difference in winning percentage. It's not like the number of games was all scattered, it was literally the entire conference playing the full or 1 less game, and the "winner" playing 3 less games. That's crazy.
If they decided to award on win % without any rules on making up games or no. of games they were not displaying any contingency planning. Guess we don’t know if there were any rules. Maybe wanted to leave it open. Guess we also don’t know if JW supported the decision but just passed by the majority. Really not that big a deal with me but might be for players and coaches with awards (monetary or otherwise). JW can change those without BIG permission.
Deleted member 186590
D
Guest
Agreeing on win % in Nov without any minimum games makes sense, to not repeat the mistake of football, but when it turns out the team leading in win % is the one team that doesn't want to make up it's games it's time to revisit that.
What I suspect is- they may have reaffirmed the win % on Feb 26th, but JW was not in favor of it given the possibility of this exact outcome was well in sight with 3 games left in the season- where we're ahead in the standings but behind in win %, but none of the other AD's cared enough use anything other than win % (why would they when it only impacted us), so they came out with the press release on March 2 confirming win % - so they obviously discussed other methods like win-loss record or the possibility of co-champions and it was shot down, otherwise why would they issue a press release with three games left in the season declaring how they would determine the winner if everyone agreed in November how they would do it - there must have been some debate?
When we actually did finish first in the standings (otherwise it would have been a moot point)- JW called for another meeting with the AD's to layout the case for co-champions, but it fell on deaf ears. Then he released his public letter to communicate how he felt and to stick up for his team
That is the most plausible explanation - not the Shannon Ryan version which doesn't make any sense
What I suspect is- they may have reaffirmed the win % on Feb 26th, but JW was not in favor of it given the possibility of this exact outcome was well in sight with 3 games left in the season- where we're ahead in the standings but behind in win %, but none of the other AD's cared enough use anything other than win % (why would they when it only impacted us), so they came out with the press release on March 2 confirming win % - so they obviously discussed other methods like win-loss record or the possibility of co-champions and it was shot down, otherwise why would they issue a press release with three games left in the season declaring how they would determine the winner if everyone agreed in November how they would do it - there must have been some debate?
When we actually did finish first in the standings (otherwise it would have been a moot point)- JW called for another meeting with the AD's to layout the case for co-champions, but it fell on deaf ears. Then he released his public letter to communicate how he felt and to stick up for his team
That is the most plausible explanation - not the Shannon Ryan version which doesn't make any sense
Deleted member 16340
D
Guest
Or maybe a samurai sword
Can’t wait until Friday, so we can move on from this and concentrate on basketball and things that are controllable.
well written
I concur
Whitman obviously wanted to publicly defend his team. He also knew exactly what he voted for and said in those meetings. Her article basically said JW wanted things both ways as recently as three weeks ago.
Shannon Ryan not naming sources tells me it came from Warrens office. He is feeling all kinds of heat (rightfully so imo) and is pushing back, and used Ryan , as she is the Trib Illini beat writer, to do so.
Tacomallini
- Washington State
A friend of mine who's a Valparaiso grad told me a similar joke:
How can you tell who's a ND alum?
Don't worry, they'll tell you.
Deleted member 747903
D
Guest
Now Ayo fires back at Dickinson with some comments of his own. Man if they meet in the B10 tourney that's going to be a war.
- Status