Wisconsin hoops coach Marisa Moseley resigns
March 10 - Marisa Moseley has resigned as the Wisconsin women's basketball coach after four seasons.
The announcement came Sunday, four days after the Badgers (13-17) were knocked out in the opening round of the Big Ten tournament.
Associate head coach Margaret McKeon will serve as interim coach in the event that Wisconsin receives an invitation to the Women's NIT.
Athletic director Chris McIntosh said Moseley informed him of her decision to resign on Friday.
"I want to thank Marisa for the commitment she demonstrated as head coach of our women's basketball program," McIntosh said in a press release. "She had a clear passion for coaching our student-athletes and she worked hard to bring success to our program. I wish her well as she transitions to the next chapter of her life."
Moseley, 42, compiled a 47-75 overall record at Wisconsin, including 21-51 in Big Ten play.
Moseley, who was 45-29 as the head coach at Boston University from 2018-21, cited personal reasons for stepping down.
"It has been a privilege to lead the program at Wisconsin," Moseley said in the press release. "I am grateful for the student-athletes, coaches and staff in our program who have put in so much time and effort. I am appreciative, also, of the Badger fans who supported us at the Kohl Center and around the country."
A former player, Tessa Towers, accused Moseley and her staff of mistreatment in a post on social media earlier this year. Moseley denied the allegations at the time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
31-05-2025
- The Herald Scotland
Lane Kiffin's College Football Playoff plan sounds tempting
Kiffin's playoff plan looks like this: Sixteen teams. Four rounds. No automatic bids. Every team must earn at-large selection. The selection process would involve analytics, combined with a human element. This wasn't my first time hearing Kiffin's idea. He ran this plan past me when we spoke in March. At the time, I didn't love Kiffin's idea. I detect no irreparable flaw with the current 12-team playoff. I didn't hate his idea, though. And I'm starting to like it more. In the months since Kiffin first floated his idea, the possibility a 16-team playoff beginning as soon as 2026 has gained steam across conferences. While the future format continues to be debated, it's clear that expansion is likely coming, in some shape and form. I'm beginning to relinquish my grip on the 12-team playoff and accept the reality of a 16-team future. As I listened to SEC muckety-mucks debate the merits of the leading 16-team ideas at the conference's spring meetings here this week, it struck me that maybe Kiffin's proposal remains the best 16-team proposal. CFP DEBATE: How SECs Greg Sankey has chance to be hero instead of villain FRIENDLY FOES?: LSU's Brian Kelly issues schedule challenge to Big Ten Kiffin's idea certainly trumps the 4+4+2+2+1 model the Big Ten favors. That rigged math equation would preassign four auto-bids to the Big Ten, plus four more to the SEC, two to the Big 12, two to the ACC, one to the top remaining conference champion, and then leave three at-large bids. This crock of a plan would reward preseason conference prestige as much as in-season results. No thanks. Someone, please shove this Big Ten brainchild into the woodchipper, and scatter the ashes on the surface of the sun. Kiffin's plan more closely resembles the 5+11 model that the Big 12 publicly supports. The ACC also reportedly favors a 5+11 system, and some SEC coaches took a shine to the idea this week, even while SEC athletic directors collectively seem more interested in the auto-bid plan favored by the Big Ten. In the 5+11 model, the top five conference champions would secure bids, leaving 11 at-large bids. That model would produce brackets that likely would resemble Kiffin's plan, but the Ole Miss coach prefers no auto-bids. So, let's play out his idea with a look in the rearview mirror. Here's how the bracket would have looked in Kiffin's model last season, using the final CFP rankings as the guide for determining the 16 qualifiers. No. 16 Clemson at No. 1 Oregon Critics of a 16-team playoff say there aren't 16 teams deserving of playoff and that too many first-round games would be duds. But, here we have the Big Ten champion against the ACC champion. Dan Lanning vs. Dabo Swinney. This would have been appointment viewing, not a dud. No. 15 South Carolina at No. 2 Georgia SEC expansion and the elimination of divisions took the Georgia-South Carolina rivalry off the schedule in 2024. Could a red-hot Gamecocks team have upset a Georgia squad starting Gunnar Stockton? It's plausible. No. 14 Ole Miss at No. 3 Texas Conferences are so big now that teams don't play half the other teams in their own league. Here we have another matchup of two SEC teams that didn't play in the regular season. The Jekyll-and-Hyde Rebels whipped Georgia but lost to Kentucky. If the good version of Ole Miss showed its face, this game could have been a doozy. No. 13 Miami at No. 4 Penn State Are you liking these matchups yet? How about this one, pitting Cam Ward against Penn State's stout defense. In the playoff that actually happened, Penn State waltzed to the semifinals by beating SMU and Boise State. This billing with Miami would have been a better matchup. No. 12 Arizona State at No. 5 Notre Dame In the playoff, the Sun Devils gave Texas all it could handle in an overtime loss in the playoff quarterfinals. In this revised bracket, Cam Skattebo would have tested the strength of Notre Dame's defense. Chalk this up as another game I would've enjoyed seeing. No. 11 Alabama at No. 6 Ohio State Holy, moly. What a dream matchup of two college football monsters. Ohio State proved throughout the postseason it was the nation's best team. If Alabama couldn't score a touchdown against Oklahoma, I don't see how it could have solved Ohio State's defense. The game probably wouldn't have lived up to the hype. No. 10 SMU at No. 7 Tennessee The Vols looked pitiful in a playoff loss at Ohio State, but this draw at Neyland Stadium probably would have produced a much different fate. The committee flubbed by awarding SMU a playoff spot. Ten-win Brigham Young, which beat SMU during the regular season, possessed better credentials, but I digress. Alas, we'll live with the committee's choice and figure SMU-Tennessee at least wouldn't have been any worse than what we saw in the playoff with SMU-Penn State or Tennessee-Ohio State. No. 9 Boise State at No. 8 Indiana I detect upset potential. Indiana built its playoff case by consistently beating bad or mediocre teams. That's not nothing, but Boise State showed in a 37-34 loss at Oregon in September it's up for a challenge. This matchup featuring Heisman Trophy runner-up Ashton Jeanty would have pitted an O.G. Cinderella, Boise State, against the 2024 slipper-wearing Hoosiers. No perfect College Football Playoff plan The Kiffin plan and the 5+11 model would have produced the same qualifiers last season. In the 5+11 construct, auto bids would have gone to Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, Arizona State and Clemson. Once I assigned teams to Kiffin's idea and saw the matchups, I liked his plan more. I daresay these first-round matchups, on the whole, would have been better in quality than those served up in last season's 12-team playoff. "There's still flaws in every system," Kiffin said, "but the best system should be 16, and it should be the 16 best" teams. "Get rid of automatics, and figure out a system to get the best 16 teams in." Doesn't sound half bad. The man with the tan cooked up a worthy plan. Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@ and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.
Reuters
30-05-2025
- Reuters
Big 12 commish: Big Ten, SEC share 'great responsibility' with CFP model
May 30 - Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormak doubled down on his support of the 5+11 model for the College Football Playoff on Friday, despite another proposed model that would guarantee his conference two playoff spots. The 5+11 model would give five automatic spots to the highest-ranked conference champions, with 11 at-large berths handed out based on the committee's rankings. Yormark presented this model when the Power 4 commissioners met recently in Charlotte, N.C. "I think there's real momentum for 5+11," Yormark said at the conclusion of the Big 12 spring meetings. "Certainly, the public is voting yes for it, which I think is critically important. Yes, the Big Ten, the SEC are leading the discussions, but with leading those discussions, they have a great responsibility that goes with it, to do what's right for college football and not to do anything that just benefits two conferences. "I have a lot of faith in the process, and I think we'll land in the right place." Last year, when a new six-year CFP deal was announced, the Big Ten and SEC were placed in charge of the playoff's format in 2026 and beyond. Another model, which the ACC and Big 12 oppose, would include four automatic qualifiers for both the SEC and Big Ten, two apiece for the Big 12 and ACC and one for the top Group of 6 team. When asked why he would oppose that model, Yormark said: "In talking to our ADs and coaches, we want to earn it on the field. "The 5+11 might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football, and it's what's fair. We don't want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field ... and I feel very comfortable with that." --Field Level Media
The Herald Scotland
29-05-2025
- The Herald Scotland
SEC football coaches want Big Ten schedule agreement
After spending two days holed up in a beachside resort for the league's annual spring meetings, SEC coaches decided to drastically alter the narrative from this painfully parliamentary offseason. The coaches want to play the Big Ten once a season. As soon as possible. "I think I can speak for the room when I say that's our first goal as coaches," said LSU coach Brian Kelly said. "But you gotta get a partner who says we're in for that, too." USA TODAY Sports reported last October that the SEC and Big Ten were talking about a scheduling agreement, one that would significantly increase media rights revenue as a stand alone regular season series. A Big Ten official, speaking in December on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions, said the series may not begin until later this decade or the early 2030s because of logistics. But in the fluid environment of college sports, where the world revolves around generating revenue to help offset pay for play, what's concrete one month is mailable the next. Especially for the two super conferences quickly coalescing and gaining further separation from the rest of college football. The ultimate goal of any scheduling agreement would be a straight 16 vs. 16 format, but there are obstacles. While Kelly said he was speaking for the entire group of coaches, that's theoretically. CRYING EYES: SEC coaches complain as college football burns around them ADULTS NEEDED: College sports 'leaders' acting like children in CFP squabble They all want to play a game against the Big Ten, but not all in the same manner. Like everything of late in college football, nothing lives in a vacuum. There are tentacles and unintended consequences to every decision. It begins with the SEC schedule debate (eight or nine games?), and includes the College Football Playoff selection committee (do Big Ten games strengthen resumes?). If the league sticks with eight games, coaches are full-go on playing a non-conference game against the Big Ten. If the league moves to nine conference games, that could be a problem for the four SEC schools (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina) with current annual rivalry games against an in-state ACC school. Playing nine conference games, an annual rivalry game and a game against the Big Ten would leave those four teams with one flexible game on the schedule. Washington, Oregon, Iowa and Southern California are in similar situations in the Big Ten, which currently plays nine conference games. In other words, a simple 16 vs. 16 schedule agreement might be difficult to execute. But an agreement that includes a majority of the schools from each conference would still generate significant revenue and attention. "I'm all for it, but it'd be like the Kansas City Chiefs playing the Green Bay Packers for an 18th regular season game," South Carolina coach Shane Beamer said. "And the other teams aren't." Any schedule agreement also depends on the most perplexing issue of the moment: the College Football Playoff selection committee. Specifically, metrics used to select teams. Many in the SEC believe they were unfairly penalized for playing in the most competitive conference in college football. Losses, they said, held more weight than wins -- no matter the strength of the conference. There must be a process, SEC officials say, where the selection committee votes within the subtleties of the season. Case in point: Indiana. The Hoosiers won 11 games in 2024, but beat one team with a winning record and received an at-large berth. While a rotating Big Ten schedule gave Indiana a favorable draw, the selection committee could have weighed that factor -- instead of simply rewarding the Hoosiers for winning games. Then there's SMU, which had two losses in a conference that was 3-8 vs. the SEC in the regular season, and was selected ahead of three-loss Alabama, Ole Miss and South Carolina. The 10 Football Bowl Subdivision conferences that make up the CFP already showed a willingness to change formats after only one season of the 12-team structure. The CFP last week eliminated automatic byes for the highest-ranked four conference champions, and instituted a straight-seed process for the 2025 season. Maybe friction from the offseason will filter into the selection committee room, too, where the human condition typically outweighs other objective and subjective factors. Or maybe it's as simple as winning games that matter, and another non-conference win over a Big Ten team would go a long way in the eyes of the committee. Especially against the conference that has won the last two national titles. "We want to show we have the depth in this league from top to bottom," Kelly said. "And we are the premier league in the country." Finally, a return to football normalcy. Until the next legal hurdle, anyway. Matt Hayes is the senior national college football writer for USA TODAY Sports Network. Follow him on X at @MattHayesCFB.
