Good story.

Fear is a great motivator. Light that competitive fire to get our new arena built!

I wonder what makes Marla write..."still in the running"?

Probably the same thing that made her inaccurately quote Jimmy C's OU salary...

$425,000 not $600,000

She did a poor job researching this one. No debate necessary.

On a related note -- One the most incredibly inaccurate observations I've seen on our board in many years was posted a few weeks ago, and read something like: "I like the Zips position. OU is built for the short term. Akron is built for the long haul."

OU hired Frank Solich for football. They have won NCAA tourney games in 2 of the past 3 seasons. They have a 13,000 seat basketball facility. They've fired a basketball coach who was 19-11 in his final season, because it wasn't good enough.

Lose a great coach, hire another one. Fire underachievers. Outspend everyone else. Great facilities. OU is built EXACTLY for the long haul. They are our most formidable basketball competitor, and for the next decade+.

Why not K.e.n.t.? Because, per Marla, K.e.n.t. is "justifiably" pumping the lion's share of their money into football.

Dunlap just tweeted that he was told the Dukes plan to make a second run at KD.

So I guess yeah, he's still in the running. Although I doubt Duquesne is in the running.

I'm not sure her claim that only four schools in the whole country have won at least 10 league games in the past 14 years is accurate either.

I posted this on the ncaabbs board.

Marla didn't do a very good job researching this one. First she made the salary assumption at 600k...which probably stemmed from everyone jumping the gun due to one knucklehead at cbssports stating JC would make "comparable" money to his current salary at TCU....which was actually 590k.

Next up she claims that Can't has the lowest paid HC in the league. When in fact, they do not.

Orr- 160k
Witherspoon - 188k
Murphy - 225k
Taylor - 205k

And that doesn't take into account Miami, which I believe they were underpaying Coles significantly (200k if I remember correctly). Is Can't in the bottom half? yes, but not dead last.

I posted a complete list of HC salaries in the MAC on the NCAABBS board under the WMU page if anyone wants to check it out.

*I also read that Dambrot will make close to 500k after this last season due to incentives. Not sure if that is accurate or not though. I couldn't find a breakdown.

LOL.

I was just rereading my post and noticed that zipnation has an auto filter that changes the spelling of your main rival.

Now that's funny.

Ha ha...yep. Any little opportunity to insult them should rightly be taken.

Oftentimes, I think some fans are blind in assuming that their own program is "doing it the right way". It often appears to me as nothing more than an excuse for why some other program is passing us.

Ken+ flew out ahead of us a decade ago, and we've been trying to catch them ever since. In the meantime, OU has passed us.

Some of our fans need to be much more open to the thought that maybe "our way" really may not be the "best way".

Well said. Kentucky just won a national championship and has been a good program since...well, a heck of a long time. Is Kentucky built for the long term or short term with one-and-done players? If Akron was in the same position as Kentucky right now, then nobody would be saying anything about "building a program we can all be proud of" or "doing it the right way". Calapari did it the right way...he got good players and won a national championship and the fans are extremely happy. What else is there? Calapari won't even let the words "student-athlete" come out of his mouth because he knows why he is there and he knows what the fans expectations are.

Just a theory, but after looking at the Dukes job, KD started to run away and hasn't stopped to look back to see if anyone is still chasing him. Just goes to show, "still in the running" can mean a lot of things. He's still running away....

The only post on ZN.o that I recall sounding like that is one that I made. But it had nothing at all to do with football, facilities, hiring new coaches, etc., etc. It was in a discussion about the NCAA tournament, and was very narrowly aimed at OU's style of relying so heavily on 3-point shooting to win, and how their NCAA tournament run would end when their outside shooting went cold. It was intended to be complimentary of the Zips' new focus on the inside game, which is generally more reliable over the long run than UA's prior reliance on 3-point shooting.

Here's a link to the original post for those who might want to consider the statement within its original context. And, by the way, I give credit to OU for staying hotter from the outside longer than I thought they would.

So Akron is built for the long run (with an inside game), but has never won an NCAA tourney game. OU is built for the short run (with three point shooting) and just won two straight tourney NCAA games. Got it. Looking forward to the long run.

BTW What percentage of points did Akron score in the paint this season?

The only way mid-majors stand a chance of beating "majors" is by hitting the 3 at a very high percentage. Trying to match real "major" programs inside the paint is impossible. Hell...vs. UNC, tiny OU couldn't buy a rebound off missed free throws!

Their inside game was parsley on the dinner plate. They lived off the three...as they should.

Looking forward to what Blake Justice brings to our table in 2012-13.

The most important thing is to have a better all-around game -- both inside and outside -- and to execute best when it most matters. Clearly, OU has done that better than UA, especially over the last three seasons.

The Zips began transitioning this season to more of an inside game from the previous profile of relying heavily on the backcourt's 3-point shooting. Last season the Zips shot 3-pointers 33.6% of the time (43rd in the country) and this season dramatically reduced that to 25.3% (218th in the country). By comparison, OU this season shot 3-pointers 32.1% of the time (71st in the country).

Despite the reduction in 3-point shooting, the Zips raised their scoring average from 70.1 per game last season to 72.2 this season. Part of that was due to scoring more shots from mid-range and in the paint, and part of that was raising their average number of free throws attempted from 18 per game to 21.8. An offense more focused on the inside game generally results in drawing more fouls and more free throw attempts.

Of course there's more to the game than just the balance of inside vs. outside shooting. For example, OU's quick-handed guards gave the Bobkitties the 3rd highest average number of steals per game of any team in the country. And despite often having four guards on the floor at the same time, OU ranked 76th in the country in offensive rebounds. That's impressive.

I give great credit to OU for assembling a nice group of quick, sharpshooting guards, and for executing their game plan extremely well against tough competition.

But I like UA's new focus on the inside game even better because inside games are generally more reliable than long-range shooting. The Zips just need to continue working on development of their inside game and execute it better than they did this season.

An inside game gets you a 1st round NIT loss.

An outside game gets you NCAA wins.

Look at K.e.n.t. - Who carried them in their tourney runs? Guards. Small forwards. They won tourney games with stiffs like John Edwards at center. OU won with a dime-a-dozen Reggie Keeley.

Huffman, Shaw, Mitchell, Gates...

Bassett, Cooper, Kellogg, Offutt...

That's who wins.

Shooting the 3 is the difference between being a giant killer, and a 1st round floor mat.

The Zips played their last game this year on March 13. OU played their last game this year on March 23. I'm not sure I would stick with the "long run" argument if I were you. One of those teams IS set up for the long run and it is OU.

Jacksonville did it!

Actually, the most important thing is to have a star player. Take the star player and win/die with that player. OU does that...we don't. OU is a better team because of it. The Zips have two star players. One is underdeveloped and the other doesn't even start and for the life of me I can't figure out why.

OU has a nice group of guards, but let's not kid ourselves. Cooper is the reason they go as far as they do.

Maximizing star talent is how a team wins games. Our style is outdated and we don't win in the clutch because of it.

I think some of you are off in your thinking based on a couple of examples of "3 pt shooting only" teams making runs. The mid majors that consitently make runs in the tourney do it with both, as DIG says. It is easy to site many examples of this: Butler, Gonzaga, and Xavier to name a few. Even Can't had inside people that you had to account for.

I do agree with GP1 that a star player can be the difference, especially on teams that are "built" one sided. To me, OU's run was more impressive due to opponents knowing they just had to stop Cooper, and Offutt to a lesser extent, yet they didn't.

Pretty good statistical analysis, but you have failed to consider the effect of the all important shots per game stat.

Isn't Artis Gilmore about 71 years old? I don't think the 3-point line existed in college hoops until a couple decades after "Rigor" Artis' final game with the Dolphins? The game has changed.

Xavier isn't a mid-major. Gonzaga in't a mid-major. And Butler isn't either. They are "majors" residing in a non-BCS conference. If you have multiple players in the NBA, you are not on the same level as the Zips.

Murray State is a mid-major. Norther Iowa is a mid-major. Wichita State is a mid-major. OU is a mid-major.

None of those programs have the resources of a mediocre BCS level team...they are all Mid-Majors. Just because they have had continued success does not elevate them in stature.

Look at say Oklahoma St for example vs any of those teams, it's not even a comparison in terms of resources and then of course conference alignment.

Please present me the numbers that prove your statement.

If Xavier and Gonzaga don't have the recources of mediocre BCS basketball programs, I'll walk naked from Akron to Valporaiso, farting the K.e.n.t. State fight song the entire distance.

Each of those programs could hire 4 Keith Dambrots for their bench, and still have money remaining to hire a couple private jets for tournaments in Alaska and Hawaii.

The term mid-major is used in various contexts these days, clearly lacking a concrete definition. While some coaches and players find it to be a demeaning term akin to the minor leagues, others, such as college basketball blogger and author Michael Litos, believe there will never be a precise definition and that the term is used out of convenience to describe teams with fewer financial resources.

Mid-major madness

2010

This is from 2010. Gonzaga ranks 44, Butler 86, and Xavier 172. Akron is 146. Only a handful of "BCS" schools below Gonzaga, hardly any below the rest of them. Hope you have nice shoes to wear on your walk.

Whoa there on Xavier. There's conflicting data on that. Your link shows Xavier with a way low 2010 basketball budget of $1,645,652, while the link below has the following to say about Xavier:

Xavier has sixteen intercollegiate sports, none of which are American-Style Football (it dropped the program in 1973 because it was losing the school $200,000 per annum). Over the following 20 years -- and this is the genius part -- Xavier made a major push towards building one of the best men's basketball programs in the country.

Of those overall athletic expenses, nearly $4 million -- a full 30 percent of X's athletic expenses -- are now spent on men's basketball. That's the largest percentage of any school in Division I. (Similarly football-free Gonzaga spends 23 percent, by comparison.)

Xavier: It's a Basketball School, Dammit

Big difference!

Also, I count dozens of "BCS" schools below Gonzaga in the numbers you linked to, including some perennial powers such as tOSU,

Something tells me the good Captain will be keeping his clothing on and walking shoes off.

I think I'll stick by the numbers in my link. A simple google search confirms the top numbers such as Duke's. I see a little more credibiliity in those numbers as opposed to the "tens of millions" and "sometimes 100 million" the writer cites in your link.

@zipdiehard, you can believe whatever you choose to believe. But I can find no data that supports that low-ball Xavier men's basketball budget that you want to stake your bet on.

The most recent reference to Xavier's basketball budget came in a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article less than a week ago that gave the budgets of all Atlantic 10 teams from the 2006-07 and 2010-11 seasons.

Xavier's increased 24.6% from $3,154,000 to $3,929,000.

In fact, there are many references on the internet to Xavier's basketball budget being just under $4 million. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on that number.

Duquesne hoops budget doubled

I realize you have chosen to focus on just Xavier, but if you look at your own latest link, you will see that the numbers for the rest of the A-10 are the same in both. In reality, your link helped to validate the one I cited.

Anyway, who knows why the Xavier numbers are off. tOSU's were off as well, but the others from the top that I looked at were the same from various sources.

I wouldn't bet on any information gathered from the internet...

Meant "your example" was Xavier, not focusing on.

Butler and Gonzaga's coaches each make over $1,000,000 per year. So does Wichita State's. They make BCS money.

Getting back to the bet, most available data supports that Xavier and Gonzaga do have the recources of mediocre BCS basketball programs. In a previous ZN.o discussion on the BCS-level resources of top mid-major teams, I researched the fact that Gonzaga's basketball team has a private jet for road games and for jetting the coaches overseas to evaluate foreign talent. That's BCS-level, not mid-major.

The guy who wrote that article you dismiss runs the site you cite.

Your mind is blown.

I guess that blows the credibility of either article.