Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Blue & Gold

Marla Ridenhour on OU Hiring Jim Christian

37 posts in this topic

Dambrot said Sunday night he was never offered the job by the school his father Sid played for in the 1950s and is not interested in leaving Akron. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, former Kentucky assistant Orlando Antigua looks to be Duquesne’s top choice, but it appears Dambrot is still in the running.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder what makes Marla write..."still in the running"?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :lol:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder what makes Marla write..."still in the running"?

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :lol:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Jacksonville did it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacksonville did it!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0