Interview with Wright State University President David Hopkins

By Mike Reynolds

WSU President David Hopkins

RRB: How does WSU Athletics contribute to the greater institution?

DH: Well, I always like to start out and say that I had a student-athlete experience in college. First and foremost, I think athletics should be what we call the collegiate model; the one we are trying to protect now – the integrity of the model. This model really puts the student-athlete first. Being part of an athletic team is part of growing, not only personal development but leadership development. It should always be about the individual student athletes and what they are gaining.

I do think that it can be a great spirit enhancer for a campus. You can see that at Wright State and see that across the NCAA where there is a great deal of pride that you can have in your alma mater and your institution when you see your teams participating at a level of excellence against others. I think there is a spirit that grows from athletics on a campus that I think is very positive. I think the other thing that athletics can do is give us a visibility that you can’t get with everything. Many times we have found in working with prospective donors is that they became hooked into Wright State through a connection to athletics but then they become individuals who care about, say science. So they are much more than athletic donors, they become connected to the university because of their passion for the competition. And so I think the visibility, and there are multiple ways that we get visibility at this institution: our theater program, our music program, is great. We think that anything that puts Wright State name out nationally or internationally is a positive because our athletics teams are made up of men and women who do a great job of representing this university. I think a lot of people take that for granted; these are high quality young people who are working so hard. You see it every time they represent us. I am so proud of them.

RRB: The time that student-athletes put in on a daily basis is incredible.

DH: Having been a former student-athlete in two sports, I never took a day off. I went from preseason basketball, basketball season, right into preseason baseball and then baseball season. So for me it was a daily thing and yet, how these young people manage their time … their performance in the academic arena is superb. We consistently have our athletes doing better than the general student body. Each year we recognize the students with a GPA of at least 3.0; that line gets bigger and bigger each year and that also makes us proud. This is the model at Wright State … these are true student-athletes. I can’t say that about all the NCAA teams today. I’m truly proud that we have a Division I student-athlete program here that’s really focused on the student-athlete but can play at a level of excellence that I think is surprising to people

RRB: How much are you involved with the athletics department?

DH: Well first of all, what I’ve learned from my mentors through the years, President Goldenberg that I worked with here and President John Moore from Indiana State and lots of other colleagues, is the understanding that this is something that Presidents have to pay attention to because athletics are so much in the public domain. There’s so much in the news and something can wrong very quickly and things do happen all over the country. I am really proud of how our coaches manage their teams and how they are work with these young people. But anything can happen so I find myself very hands-on. Our athletics program reports to Dan Abrahamowicz, our vice-president of student affairs. Bob Grant has been a fantastic athletic director in terms of driving the core values that we care about and maintaining a value-driven athletic program. Dan reports through the Provost to me but I make time to meet with the athletics director on a regular basis so that I’m not hearing it second and third hand. I have distinct questions that I ask about things and I want to know first-hand. So while the reporting line doesn’t show he reports to me, I really try to stay hands-on because it’s so easy for intercollegiate athletics to morph into something that we are not proud of … that’s not the case here but it’s happening all over the country where Presidents have lost control of the collegiate model of athletics and we are not going to do that here.

RRB: What are your impressions of our two basketball coaches?

DH: They are both very passionate about what they do and all you have to do is watch them coach. I have been proud of both of them in that, again, to me, it’s about striving for excellence in everything that we do at this university, no matter what program, what department, we are going to be the very best we can be. And that’s the way they both approach it. The other thing I’m proud about both of them is that they build teams. They help people grow as people but they build a concept of team and the “it’s amazing what you can accomplish when it doesn’t matter who gets the credit” kind of teams and I love that about athletics. It was something that was ingrained in me many years ago and it’s something that I try to create here on this campus is this environment where if you think like a basketball team sometimes, where everybody has got their role to play … sometimes somebody has to step up but it doesn’t matter who – one time it’s one individual that steps up and another time it’s another person. I think both coaches epitomize this in their coaching. They are passionate but they are passionate about the student-athlete … I keep saying that but it just the type of coaches we hire. If you hear Billy Donlon and Mike Bradbury go out and talk to Rotary Clubs, you’ll hear them talk about the greatness of Wright State academically. You hear that all the time from these coaches because they believe it. That’s the heart and soul of what we do here and they won’t let that fall apart and that’s why I’m really pleased with them and, all of our coaches are like that. We hire them and have certain expectations and we hold them accountable for the success of their student-athletes. It’s the most important thing they do.

We are not trying to be something we can’t be. We know we are, we know who we serve and we are going to be darn good at it. And I think that’s the way the coaches feel about their teams. They are not going to cut corners or take shortcuts to achieve excellence – they are going to do it through hard work and setting high expectations. That’s the nature of Wright State University; that’s who we are. A lot of times people talk about us being a blue-collar institution; when someone says that, well I’m kind of proud of that comment because we serve a lot of students who come from blue-collar families. So, I like that I our coaches; they epitomize that whole approach to sport and athletics.

RRB: Wright State, Ohio, the country and the world for that matter are going through a difficult economic crisis. How will this impact WSU Athletics and collegiate athletics in general?

DH: Well, I think we’ve lived within our means here. You can look at all the national statistics. Now we don’t have football; we cannot afford to have football. It’s not something we intend to invest in although I’m really glad we have a club football program. We think that those young men can have a lot of fun and learning experiences. Like all of the university, we all have to tighten our belts and we have asked the athletic department to tighten its belt the last four years. It’s been one of those times in the economy. We’ve have to live within our means and then tighten the belt even more. Athletics is not immune to this. They have the same expectations and in some ways greater, to make sure they maintain their budget. We make tough decisions every day. We have to make them and athletics is going to be part of those tough decisions and already have been. I’ve been proud of the way they’ve handled it and will continue to because it’s not like this economy is going to come roaring back. The state certainly does not have the funds so we are going to be in this mode for a number of years.

RRB: You’ve already talked about this but any other remarks on WSU Athletics?

DH: I think we have made a commitment to field the sports that we can afford. I think we’ve made a commitment to field sports where we think we can compete in our league. We don’t ever want to be in sports where we don’t think we have a chance to win our conference championship. We owe our young men and women, through good coaches, good facilities, and the support system they need to be able to compete for a conference championship. Now I’m not talking about NCAA, we love to think that someday but right now our goal is to make sure that we field teams that are competitive in our league. And we do that consistency. I think, obviously, as the future goes on we have to look if there’s opportunities to add sports within a more budgetary limited climate; we’d certainly do that but at this point in time we are pretty happy with where we are. I am really pleased with the way we’ve done things in our athletic program with people and players.

RRB: You alluded to this briefly earlier, but increasing attendance at basketball games. We have a very competitive team and we have a large alumni base in the region. It’s the million dollar question but how what can be done to get more people into the Nutter Center.

DH: I think you have to get the context first. First of all, we are number two in the Horizon League in attendance and we have been number one. Secondly, we are in the top one hundred in attendance in the entire nation out three hundred and thirty-some teams. It’s one of those things where if you have a little bitty gym and you didn’t have this beautiful Nutter Center and you had five thousand people, it would be jam packed. We also are often compared to neighbors, University of Dayton who have been around for a long time and have developed a wonderful history and program; they get 12 or 13 thousand a night. It becomes a comparison which is truly unreasonable; we’ve been in Division I since 1987. We are doing pretty well. Now, I’m not satisfied because I think we should be getting much more support for these young men and women. When you are beating Butler, the runner-up for the National Championship and you have the quality to compete there, our schedule is getting better every year – well, I want to see bigger crowds and more students there. I want to see these young people recognized for what they do so well.

The other thing that I am proud of is that we are creating a very family friendly atmosphere at our games. You are seeing a lot more younger families coming. I like to say we are growing Raiders. So, I think we are doing pretty well averaging 5 or 6 thousand; it’s a matter of time, we’ll build that following. Give us 20 more years. When we go to semesters things will change. On the quarter system, we play, this year, like five home games when our students are gone on break. And we only play about 15 home games the whole year. So you can see, since we are not on semesters, we’ve always had that challenge. Now we can do better but I think that when we go to semesters next year it will change the involvement of the students and it changes the whole pace of the calendar for us. It will change the whole dynamic of getting students involved. I’ve been very pleased; we have had some great student turnouts. We’ve had a thousand and two thousand students turn out but not consistently.

So, I think we have to keep things in perspective for where we are in Division I basketball and how we compare nationally and in our conference. We are making pretty good progress.

You have to win and we now we winning and once you have a consistent winner, people will look at you. And, look at the schedule, we have UC coming to town, we have OU coming to town, we have Charlotte. We have Ohio State, Florida – now those are not at home but by just competing with these teams then you are seeing a high quality product on the court.

I’ve been working hard on this; I’m not finished with this about idea … Ohio State coming to Wright State to play someday. President Gee and I have had some conversations and I’m happy we are on their schedule – that’s the beginning, but I’ve been saying how important it is for the whole region to have the Buckeyes come here. So we are not done working on that.

RRB: The inevitable question … the Gem City Jam. Will the game ever be played?

DH: No. I think it’s very clear that there is no interest from UD in playing that game. And that’s fine. We’ve approached them a number of times. We’ve offered up the idea of playing it for charity and they have been clear that they have no interest in playing. I do think that is a shame for the community; I’ve said that consistently and publicly. I think it’s short-sighted for what athletics is all about and building a community spirit. But, I am not in their shoes; I’m looking at it from the Wright State perspective. They certainly have a different perspective but to me it’s difficult to understand when, in other communities, where there are two Division I team in a town they play. Why our community doesn’t demand it – it’s strange.

RRB: You are now on the Division I Board of Directors. Tell us more about the board and the duties and responsibilities.

DH: The first meeting was in August in Indianapolis. The Division I board has 18 Presidents that serve and I, of course, represent the Horizon League. Not all leagues are represented; there is a rotation of the leagues on the board. I have a four year term. Essentially we approve and oversee all the policies and procedures for Division I athletics – all sports. So, I learned a great deal at this meeting. I was really proud to be part of this. Fifty presidents were invited to a two-day retreat and then 18 of us stayed for the board meeting on the third day. What happened was, well … Presidents are really fed up to be perfectly honest.

In that room we had Presidents from all the big conferences SEC, ACC, Big Ten. We all sat in the room and said in unison, we are fed up with the perceptions of college athletics. We are going to regain control of college athletics. In a way that reminds people that it’s a collegiate model. We are never going to undo the commercialized model of football; it’s going to be there and we are not to try to undo it but have to get our hands around the fact that these are student-athletes. We all agreed we are not paying the athletes but we do think that there must be a way to spend more money on supporting student-athletes. We are going to maintain the collegiate model; we are not turning this into a professional model. It has been at some select institutions.

There are 331 Division I institutions and 22 actually made money. This is public data. We have a financial sustainability problem in higher education athletics. So we have to get control of that; we have to find efficiencies, we have to quit trying to keep up with the Jones’s. There’s only a small segment of the institutions doing that. Everybody thinks the institutions are making all this money and truth is it’s only 22 schools out of 331.
We’re talking in great detail about how to change the 464 page rulebook that is totally out of control. We talked a lot at the retreat about financial sustainability; making sure we are spending money on student welfare and taking care of students in all ways, most importantly in their academic success. On the rulebook, out of the retreat come two working groups that President Emmert (NCAA President) is going to put together. We’ve asked him to come back to the board in October for some of these matters and by April next year with a review of the rulebook. We need to look at the book and the most important values and principles – having rules around those but streamlining this rulebook; it’s just totally out of control. People don’t understand it; nobody understands the expectations or penalties. So the Presidents really came out strong that we are going to follow through this. I think there is a real sense of urgency that if we don’t do something now, we’ve lost control of the collegiate model. It’s important to remind people though that there are 34 sports that they play national championships in and most of the perceptions of college athletics are from around two sports, basketball and football. So be it. We run those other programs in ways that really honor the collegiate model. Basketball has its issues and football has its issues but we are going to change a lot of things this year.

One thing we already changed was how the academic progress rate (APR). It’s going to go from 900 – today if a team has an APR under 900 there is a penalty structure (lose scholarships, etc). We are changing the penalty structure to have five levels. In the third level if you drop below 930, your team will not be eligible to have postseason play, including bowl games. We’ve asked for a plan to be delivered in October at our next board meeting on how we transition this to “930.” It’s going to change the way coaches see things. We are trying to make this very clear that the Presidents are going to bring the hammer down. We want these penalties to be much clearer. We want them to understand that if you are going to break a rule, these core principal rules, then here’s the consequence. I was really proud to be part of this. I think we are all of the same mind.

Over the next year we are looking to change the freshman eligibility requirements – for you to be able to play your freshman year right now your GPA must be 2.0 – there’s a sliding scale with your SAT – we are going to move that GPA to 2.5. What we are finding with the data is that a lot of these young men and women were not prepared to succeed in college coming in at those low levels and it’s just overwhelming them to be in a Division I sport and try to succeed in class at the same time.

We are looking to change the transfer eligibility rules. All these will be ratcheting up the higher expectations of the academics. I am going to do my best, as one of the 18 Presidents in charge of this, to really follow through on this matter. It was a little over 100 years ago that when Teddy Roosevelt brought the Presidents together because football was totally out of control and the NCAA was formed to get control of football. We have to have integrity in the collegiate model or we might as well forget it. So we are going to work very hard to improve the integrity of the collegiate model for 99% of the student-athletes who participate. It was an interesting conversation but one that we needed to have. That may be the first retreat the presidents have had in a long, long time.

I want to protect the student-athlete collegiate model. It is one that is very sacred to me personally because I had that experience. We spoke about the one and done in basketball; partly that problem is the NBA because they have rules different from Major League baseball or the NFL. We have too many young men that come in and enroll in classes for the fall semester at some of these schools; they stay eligible, barely, sign up in the spring semester that they don’t even attend because basketball season is over in March. They don’t have any intention to get a college degree. Then what happens in the future is this impacts the APR for their team. If you leave a university in good standing then it’s not held against your APR because people leave to go get jobs all the time. But, when they don’t leave in good standing, it will affect the APR; we are working with the NBA to try to get them to change the rules to say you’ve got to go to two years of college or be 19 years old before you can go into the NBA.

There are some things that can’t change completely without the support of the NBA. The one and done only applies to a few student-athletes but so many think they are going to do that and then that sets them into a downward spiral in what really should be a great opportunity to get a college education for quality of life beyond the days of professional sports.

RRB: On to the Horizon League, you are still on the board of the Horizon League. Tell us what is involved with this board and you activities.

DH: Well, now that I’ve had a meeting with the Division I board, I realize the Horizon League Board is a smaller version of that. We bring the 10 Presidents of the Horizon League together with Commissioner Jon LeCrone twice a year. We have some committees like the audit committee, the finance committee that meet by phone, but the entire board comes together to make sure that we are financially stable as a conference, how championships are run and that we are really focus on our values of the student-athletes. Again, I’m really proud of the Horizon League. We have great competitive programs; Butler has demonstrated that. The schools are focused on getting the athletes to graduate on time and with the right support systems. Another example of an action from this board is about a year ago we made some changes where not all teams go to the championship series now. We were sending everybody and it was really not cost-effective. Those are the kinds of things we do.

RRB: Please talk more about the league in general. It would be considered strong and stable, true?

DH: Yes, very strong. I think the addition of Valparaiso was very important to get us to a ten team league. They brought value to our league. I think we are very comfortable where we are with ten members but again, that’s part of our duty as Presidents of the league to look at things like, do we add teams in the future or do we not. The conference is very stable right now. Financially, we are in the best shape we’ve been in for a very long time. The Butler wins have brought some funds to our conference that the league didn’t have before and helped out the member institutions.

One of the things that is really frustrating to all of us in the Horizon League, a proud and competitive mid-major conference, is to see 11 teams from the one big conference going to the basketball tournament. When you have Butler going to the tournament and no one else from the Horizon … I think the NCAA is really concerned about how the wealth is being distributed. It’s like a lot of things in life, the rich get richer. There’s no reason to have that inequity in some of the distribution of basketball money. We’ve got to look at the ways that money is distributed and so the Horizon League is very interested in that of course.

RRB: So league expansion is not “off-the-table” but not a high priority issue at all.

DH: Not with Valpo now in the league. I think at this moment we don’t see any teams looking to leave. I think we are very comfortable where we are. Valpo is the one we worked hard on to get done and so we’re comfortable. But it doesn’t mean never. It’s a nice way to compete with 10 teams.

RRB: Does the league have a strategic plan or long term goals?

DH: I would not say we have built a typical strategic plan but I think we have what we call core values or principles that guide us. I think we’ve been the type of league that’s been able to adapt to the changing environment in terms of the NCAA. We have to respond to a lot of things and hopefully we change some of those things. I think we just try to work every day with these core values that are fundamental to the league. We are always trying to improve the student-athlete experience. We talk about that a lot. We are looking at ways to support research at each of our institutions that looks at the quality of the student experience and athletics. It could be around the psychology of coaching for example. We want to have a competitive high-quality conference but we want to make sure that we add new knowledge that can help our institutions learn to be more effective with student-athletes. That’s something that differentiates us from a lot of conferences. We talk about that a lot. Jon LeCrone has been a magnificent commissioner. He has been commissioner 18 or 19 years and I think he has created something really special. Our league is very unique compared to a lot of leagues in that we really worry about the student-athlete all the time.

RRB: College athletics in general … costs are escalating … coaching salaries keep growing. Any other comments?

DH: Not sustainable. We cannot sustain that model. Very few institutions can as I mentioned earlier. Maybe 22 are “in the black” and the rest lose money. The problem is there is a level of the BCS schools, then there’s this other level and those are the schools that are really losing their shirts. They are trying to emulate something they can’t. Everybody has to start to understand that fact. We are certainly not trying to emulate those models. We are going to be what we are and continue to be more effective and efficient. We are going to have to cut costs and that’s the way it is because we are doing that all over campus. The State of Ohio is doing it all over and we are a state institution.

The other thing I heard at the NCAA meeting was well, there’s this talk about how we should put caps on coaches’ salaries and all that. We should have the discipline at each institution to do what we can afford and that’s what we’ve tried to do here within a competitive market. The NCAA has talked about caps before but the anti-trust laws come in so the NCAA cannot cap salaries. There have been legal tests to that matter. I think if they could, they would, but it’s market driven and as long as some of these intuitions are going crazy with it, others will try to keep up. I can tell you that not the mode of the Horizon League. We are going to try to stay competitive within the domain where we compete.

RRB: There have long been discussions about paying student-athletes a stipend in addition to the tuition and such.

DH: We think that is a slippery slope. I think the idea of a stipend is something that will be explored. Right now the conversation at the NCAA meeting was about providing the full “cost of attendance.” Right now, we don’t in Division I. I don’t understand all those details but there are other costs that are calculated into being a normal student that the scholarships do not cover. Some people are saying if a conference wants to do it, pay the cost of attendance, then fine. The Horizon League probably couldn’t afford to do that. It may change the competitive equity but the reality is that there is not competitive equity as it is now. We want to compete within the domain of our conference. As long as the conferences are doing similar things it will be under control. I do think we need to revisit the issue of four year scholarships. A long time ago they used to be; WSU honors them as four year awards but that’s not the typical case. There is a tendency for some coaches to run players off. I think we’ll be visiting this at the NCAA meetings soon.

RRB: Any final comments or remarks you’d like to make as we wrap this up this afternoon?

DH: I appreciate RaiderRoundball and I tell people that I like to get on there and catch up with what’s going on. I ‘m a guest and don’t get on there and say things but it’s very informative. It’s important for me to see what people are saying; it’s important for me to get a context and see what others are saying. I read some things and say to myself, well, they don’t get the whole picture, but, how could they? I appreciate that RaiderRoundball exists.

RRB: Thank you for your time Dr. Hopkins.

Charlotte 49ers Outlast the Raiders 70-66

By Mike Klingshirn

Dayton, OH – The Charlotte 49ers took advantage of a physically superior effort — especially near the basket — to outlast the Wright State Raiders in a hard fought 70-66 victory in front of a crowd of 2,993 on Saturday night at the Nutter Center.

Afterwards, Wright State head coach Billy Donlon was not happy with his team’s play inside. “We played soft around the rim,” Donlon said. “Charlotte played physical. We’re missing way too many shots around the rim, and not even getting fouls on contact. That’s an issue.”

The 49ers (3-2) opened the game by scoring the first seven points in a contest that they never trailed. The Raiders (2-4) saw themselves looking at the wrong end of a 21-9 score at the 5:21 mark, thanks to starting the game with some ice cold 3-of-20 field goal shooting.

The Wright State offense woke up at that point, and went on a 10-0 run, capped by a pair of 3-pointers from AJ Pacher and John Balwigare — both coming from identical spots on the left side of the arc. That pulled WSU to within 21-19 at 3:20 left in the half. After a miserable first fifteen minutes of play, the Raiders were fortunate to head into the locker room, trailing by just two points at 28-26.

Wright State’s shooting woes continued following the intermission. That, combined with some poor defensive play, allowed Charlotte to stretch their lead to 43-33 with 12:45 left to play.

“I’m not happy with the start of the game,” Donlon said. “But that’s not why we lost the game. It’s a two point game at the half, and they score on 67-percent of their (second half) shots. We didn’t guard and we didn’t play with urgency.”

Julius Mays did his best to keep the Raiders in contention. He nailed three straight 3-point attempts, and poured in 16 points over the remainder of the contest. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough.

A Tavares Sledge jumper pulled the Raiders to within 62-60 with 2:33 to play, but the 49ers held off the Raiders by sinking 8-of-10 free throw attempts down the stretch, to hold on for the 70-66 victory.

Charlotte’s physical play was too much for the Green and Gold. The three Wright State big men (Mpondo, Pacher, Sledge) combined for 9 points, 7 rebounds, and 13 personal fouls, in 41 minutes of combined play.

“He (Charlotte’s Chris Braswell) basically fouled three centers out,” Donlon said. “We had opportunities to attack him back at the other end, and we didn’t finish plays.”

Charlotte won the battle of the boards 34-29 and outscored Wright State 30-20 in the paint.

Julius Mays led the Raiders in scoring with 25 points. Cole Darling added 12.

Career Highs:
The 25 points scored by Julius Mays was a near career high for him. His previous career high was 18 points against Maryland in the ACC tournament as a freshman, while at North Carolina State.

Charlotte’s Chris Braswell matched his career high with 22 points on 7-of-12 shooting from the field, and 8-of-11 from the foul line.

Postgame Audio

WSU’s Coach Billy Donlon

Charlotte’s Major and Briscoe

WSU’s Darling and Mays

Photos © and Courtesy of Tim G. Zechar

A tale of two periods as WSU wins second game of 11-12 season

A tale of two periods.

Like high scoring games? You would have slept through the first half of the Jackson State game (Global Sports Shootout) last night at the Nutter Center. The 3159 in attendance may very well have nodded off a few times as the first score of the game didn’t come until the 16:35 mark when Jackson State’s Bush hit a jumper. Wright State did not score until nearly nine minutes had lapsed and that bucket was awarded on a basket interference call. At one point WSU was shooting 1-12 from the field (the one again not an actual through the hoop score).

The Raiders (2-1) would trail the entire half until the Kendall Griffin hit a jumper with 46 ticks left in the period giving WSU the lead 15-14. Reggie Arceneaux would score once more before the buzzer to give WSU a 17-14 lead going into the locker room.

Wake up people! The second half would be a different story. The Raiders would eventually score 39 in the second while Jackson State would heat up but still only score 25.  The final score would be 56-39.   Reggie Arceneaux swished three 3 pointers in the second half; Balwigaire and Battle would each add one apiece in the second period.

Wright State would end up shooting a miserable 31 percent from the field but Jackson State was even worse at 26%. The Raiders scored 13 points off the 21 JSU turnovers. WSU was outrebounded 38-36.

Not pretty but a win nonetheless to go to 2-1 on the season. Next up is Monday night at 7pm vs Florida (St. Pete Times Forum) for the next round of the Global Sports Shootout (Fox Sports Florida).

Post game Audio

WSU’s Darling and Arceneaux

WSU’s Billy Donlon

Photos © and Courtesy of Tim G. Zechar

Raiders Defeat the Lords on Sunday 80-56

By Mike Klingshirn

Dayton, OH – Sunday was not the (Kenyon College) Lords’ day. The Wright State Raiders (1-1) defeated the Division III Kenyon College Lords convincingly by a final score of 80-56. A sparse Nutter Center crowd was on hand to witness WSU’s first victory of the season. Official attendance was “Raidered up” with an announced crowd of 2,583.

In an odd scheduling twist, this contest was part of the regular season schedule for the Raiders, but only an exhibition game for Kenyon College.

Kenyon opened the game by hitting their first two shot attempts to quickly stake a 5-0 advantage. Undeterred, Wright State answered by scoring the next ten points to go up 10-5 — their first lead of the young season. It was a lead that they would not relinquish.

After trading a few points, the Raiders went on an 11-1 run, capped by a Vance Hall trey. That put WSU comfortably ahead 25-10 with 7:26 left in the half.

John Baligwaire’s hot hand in the game’s first twenty minutes sent Wright State into the halftime locker room with a 42-24 lead. Baligwaire hit 4-of-5 attempts, including 3-of-3 from beyond the arc. Also significant was the Green and Gold’s 23-1 halftime advantage in first half points scored off of turnovers.

An Armond Battle layup and free throw put the Raiders up 45-24, coming out of the locker room. Kenyon closed the margin to 47-28, but got no closer than 20 points over the final 17 minutes of play. The Raiders enjoyed their largest lead at 71-41 with seven minutes remaining, before eventually coming away with an 80-56 victory.

Tavares Sledge led Wright State in both scoring (16) and redounds (8). “Tavares has a chance to be a really good player,” said head coach Billy Donlon. “He plays so hard for a freshman. He’s relentless.”

Ten different Raiders contributed to the team’s point total. John Baligwaire (14), Armond Battle (11), and Kendall Griffin (11) were the other Raiders to score in double figures.

Although he was one of the few Raiders who did not score, Jason Cuffee contributed with six assists and no turnovers in twenty minutes of action.

Wright State outscored Kenyon 32-12 in the paint. They hit 25-of-57 from the field (43.9%), while committing just 11 turnovers. The Green and Gold also won the battle of the boards 39-31.

Alex Pritchett dressed, but did not play. Donlon reported that the plan is to redshirt him for the season. “As a coach, my job is to always do what is best for the immediate team,” Donlon added. “If something happens, and we need to stop the redshirt, we will do that.”

Cole Darling and Matt Vest, possibly Wright State’s two best returning players from last year’s team, are also injured and have not seen action in the first two games. “Darling and Vest add to our versatility,” Donlon said. “That’s significant.”

With the victory, the Raiders lead the all-time series with Kenyon 5-2, dating back to 1971. They previously met in January 2006, with WSU winning 88-47.

Wright State returns to action on Wednesday night at the Nutter Center for a 7:00 contest with Jackson State.

Post Game audio

WSU’s Sledge and Balwigaire on Kenyon game

WSU’s Donlon on Kenyon game

Photos © and Courtesy of Tim G. Zechar

Buckeyes Eat the Raiders 73-42

By Mike Klingshirn

Columbus, OH – It was finally here – the season opener against the Ohio State Buckeyes. This was the contest that had been staring the Raiders in the face since last March, after their elimination from the Horizon League tournament.

If there is one word to describe the current WSU team, it would be “inexperience.” Ten players are making their Raider debut this year, while the other six have been with the Wright State program for just one season. Given that situation, the WSU men’s basketball team prepared for the 2011-12 campaign with some extra summer practice and an August trip to Italy to play four games against Italian professional teams.

The Italian trip was not limited to just basketball. The Raiders took in several tourist attractions, among them, was a trip to the ancient Roman Coliseum — probably the most famous sports venue in all of history.

On the surface, tonight’s battle against the Buckeyes appeared to be an overwhelming task, especially after a disappointing exhibition game performance against Division-II Central State, a contest in which the WSU fell behind 14-2 and never led at any point. As the Raiders stepped off of their bus, hours prior to tip-off, one could excuse the team for having flashbacks to the Roman Coliseum — a place where it is rumored that Christians were fed to the lions.

The Green and Gold must have felt like they were about to be thrown to the lions, because inside Ohio State’s Value City Arena, the Buckeyes, a talent-laden beast of an opponent, ranked third in the nation, awaited their prey.

However, on this night, the Raiders had a little bit of a fight in them. After falling behind 9-2 to start the game, WSU played toe-to-toe with OSU over the next ten minutes. An AJ Pacher 3-pointer pulled Wright State to within 24-17 with 6:06 left in the half.

“Ohio State didn’t come out and pressure a lot right away,” said Wright State head coach Billy Donlon. “But then, we gave them the ball some — like unforced errors in tennis. They (OSU) could smell our fear and pounced on it.” The Buckeyes went on an 8-0 run over the next six minutes and closed the half with a 34-20 lead.

After being out-rebounded 48-22 in their exhibition contest against Central State, the Raiders held a surprising 14-12 halftime advantage on the boards, limiting Ohio State to just two offensive rebounds in the half.

Unfortunately for Wright State, OSU’s quickness, strength, and athleticism were too much. Fouls and turnovers mounted as a result. WSU committed 16 first half miscues, while the Buckeyes outscored the Raiders 16-2 from the charity stripe — the difference in the halftime score.

Ohio State quickly erased any Wright State thoughts of keeping this a competitive contest by scoring the first ten points of the second half to go up 44-20 at the 15:48 media timeout. The rout was on, and a handful of the 15,645 in attendance began making an early exit for the parking lots.

“We had some shots at the rim all night that we didn’t finish,” said Donlon. “Basketball is a slim-margin game. We came out in the second half and missed a layup at the rim — not highly contested. Ohio State comes down and turns it over. We miss a second layup at the rim. If we finish those two layups, we’re only down ten. Then we missed a third straight layup at the rim. I want our guys to attack the basket … and they did.”

The Buckeyes continued their assault throughout the remainder of the night to put the final touch on a 73-42 victory.

“Wright State is a young ball club,” said Ohio State head coach Thad Matta. “For them to go on the road for the first game … I thought that they had pretty good poise at running their offense and positioning defensively.”

The Wright State big men (Mpondo, Pacher, Sledge) had a difficult time keeping up with the Buckeyes inside. All three fouled out in 14, 24, and 15 minutes of action respectively. OSU outscored the Green and Gold 26-8 in the paint.

AJ Pacher led WSU in scoring with 13 points, hitting 2-of-3 from beyond the arc and 5-of-8 from the field. Reggie Arceneaux was the only other Raider to score in double figures, with 11 points. Tavares Sledge grabbed a team high eight rebounds.

Overall, the Raiders shot 31 percent (13-of-41) from the field to Ohio State’s 45 percent (21-of-47). Twenty of OSU’s points came off of 25 Wright State turnovers. The Buckeyes won the battle of the boards 34-28.

Jared Sullinger led Ohio State with 19 points, going 4-of-7 from the field and 10-of-12 from the line. He also led the Bucks with nine rebounds and three blocked shots. William Buford, the go-to guy in the second half, contributed with 13 points, while Aaron Craft added 10. Twelve Buckeyes saw action in the contest, and eleven of them contributed by scoring points.

Wright State resumes action on Sunday afternoon with a 3:00 contest with the Kenyon College Lords.

Post game Audio

OSU’s Thad Matta

WSU’s Billy Donlon

OSU’s Sullinger and Buford

Central State Drops 56-50 Bombshell on Raiders

By Mike Klingshirn

Dayton, OH – A hungry and aggressive Central State Marauder basketball team surprised the Wright State Raiders with a stunning 56-50 defeat in exhibition play at the Nutter Center on Saturday night. The Marauders scored the game’s first seven points, and opened a 14-2 advantage, eight minutes into the game. The Raiders, meanwhile, did not appear ready for the fight and never posed a real threat. Central State, in firm command from start to finish, led throughout the entire contest.

The cold-shooting Raiders connected on just 6-of-23 shots and committed 13 turnovers prior to the intermission. The Green and Gold closed the gap to 25-18 by halftime, but the Marauders maintained a near double-digit lead for most of the second half. Wright State got no closer than four points with only about a minute left to play.

Central State crashed the glass, and out-rebounded the Raiders by a startling 48-22.

The Green and Gold finished the game, hitting 17-of-50 (34%) from the field, and just 2-of-17 from beyond the arc. Armond Battle and Julius Mays led the Raiders in scoring with twelve points apiece. Johann Mpondo pulled down 9 of Wright State’s 22 rebounds.

Were there any positives for the Raiders? “Our first shot defense was tremendous,” said Wright State head coach Billy Donlon. “Our rotation and help were very good. But the biggest part of defense is securing the rebound. Your defensive possession doesn’t end until you get the rebound.”

The Raiders hope to shake-off this disappointing defeat before they battle the Ohio State Buckeyes, the third-ranked team in the nation, on Friday night November 11. Tip-off is set for 9:00.

Postgame press conference audio

Coach Donlon on CSU exhibition game

Mays and Battle on CSU game

Photos © and Courtesy of Tim G. Zechar