Jump to content

Miami Redhawks


1981 grad

Recommended Posts

The Zips have given the Marketing Department a great opportunity for what could be a very lucrative sponsorship deal, especially if the contract is set up to charge each time we mention their name.  I can hear it now...

 

"And that's another uncontested layup...brought to you by EZ Pass--official sponsor of the Akron Zips defense."

 

Repaint the lanes with the EZ Pass logo and we're all set.

Edited by BirdZip
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would attend the games whether we were 5-20 or 20-5.  That's what we do as life long fans.  Just like going to the football games even when they were 1-9.   I never bought into that "at large" scenario primarily because cutting down the nets at the Q is the best way to end a season...at least from this fan's perspective.  If we are looking for the bigger picture, we need to look no further than the MAC itself.  That is our microcosm of incestuous mediocrity.  WMU went to the tourney two years ago...bottom feeder this year.  Toledo over last few years had some incredibly talented teams...nothing came of it.  OU...has a run with Groce and then nothing.  Buffalo...one and done with a star player who was a thief and kicked out of school.  Miami once a power in the conference who had one great player (which will unlikely happen again) is struggling every year but does have Akron's #.  Akron has won 22 out of 23 games against BG but Ohio lost twice to them this year.   EMU has a star player in Thompson whose past is quite checkered.   And the team up Route 76...enough said.  It goes on and on.  What about Central?

 

And a final note, it seems these rule changes have affected Akron for the negative despite our Coach being on the rule committee.  My thought is just like the economy is not set up to help the little guy nor are the NCAA rules.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NWAkron said:

 I never bought into that "at large" scenario primarily because cutting down the nets at the Q is the best way to end a season...at least from this fan's perspective.  If we are looking for the bigger picture, we need to look no further than the MAC itself.  That is our microcosm of incestuous mediocrity. 

 

I find it interesting that you knock the idea of pursuing the "at large" option, believe that winning the MAC tournament is a great prize, but insist that the "mediocre" MAC is killing us.....All in the same post.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

I find it interesting that you knock the idea of pursuing the "at large" option, believe that winning the MAC tournament is a great prize, but insist that the "mediocre" MAC is killing us.....All in the same post.  

 

I took the phrase "I never bought into that "at large" scenario" to mean that he didn't honestly think we had a chance at an at large bid, as opposed to knocking the concept of an at large bid. Then, his comments about mediocre MAC teams eating their own supports his belief that he didn't think we had the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skip-zip said:

Our defensive deficiencies have been evident all season.  This isn't anything new. 

 

Our offensive problems are multiple, but somewhat solvable.  And Keith acknowledged most of what's been said here in the Postgame.  Yes, we have guys who can't create their own shot.  Yes, we have guards who can't penetrate.  But that was the makeup of this team from the start.  The problem right now is that teams can get away with having ONE post defender during the 30 minutes that Big Dog is playing, and have the 4 other guys chase the shooters out on the perimeter.  That situation changes dramatically when Pat can play 20 minutes.  That situation can also change dramatically when Antino can stay out of foul trouble and create plays driving to the hoop. 

 

Maybe we need to stop and realize that we've now played 9 road games and 6 home games in conference play and we're STILL a game in front of everyone else in the league.  I think we'll take that, even though we had some earlier successes on the road that haven't happened recently. 

 

At the same time, I share in the disappointment that this was another good season that could have turned into a great one.   

I did not hear KD on the post game.  But we do have a player who can penetrate and create his own shot and his name is Jimond Ivey.  He has a skill set of being quick, athletic, and being able to dribble drive.  He played terrible at the Buffalo game and KD yanked him after 4 minutes after his man drove past him twice and he committed a turnover.  KD did not play him in the Kent game.  The first thing he did when he got into the game last night at the 10 minute mark was take a jumper from the top of the key early in the shot clock.  My internet went down for a couple of minutes and when I turned it on he was out of the game.  He never played again until the game was out of reach.  Jimond has to understand he is in the game to attack the rim, not take jumpers.  This team desperately needs his skill set of attacking the rim.  ( I know some of you have already given up on Jimond but I also remember people giving on Deji early in his career with Akron)

 

What is most frustrating about last night is that it was a carbon copy of the Kent game.  We had only 8 assists.  Big Dog had a big night with 21 points.  Reggie and Jake did not get any good looks and only took 8 shots.  Noah could not penetrate and scored only 5 points.  Kwan played well but picked up stupid offensive fouls for moving screens.  Our players cannot penetrate even when Big Dog sets a screen.  (Reggie had a costly turnover in Kent coming off a Big Dog screen)  We were tied near the end of the game and then Miami pulled away when the game was tied. 

 

KD loves Noah's game of being a field general playing under control and directing our attack.  But right now this team does not needs a general to guide our offense but a grunt who will attack the basket.  We still can win out and get the number one seed but we need to do something different than the last 2 games.  Go Zips! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Glib Shanley said:

 

I took the phrase "I never bought into that "at large" scenario" to mean that he didn't honestly think we had a chance at an at large bid, as opposed to knocking the concept of an at large bid. Then, his comments about mediocre MAC teams eating their own supports his belief that he didn't think we had the chance.

 

I'm glad that you and NWAkron know each other, and can interpret the meaning of his internet posts. 

 

I simply commented on what I was reading. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

I'm glad that you and NWAkron know each other, and can interpret the meaning of his internet posts. 

 

I simply commented on what I was reading. 

 

I don't know NWAkron or Glib and took NWA's post to mean it would take a long shot and an undefeated MAC season for any MAC team to get an at large, so he really never expected that to be an option in spite of what others thought a few weeks ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of us can be 100% certain, and I'm sure someone could do the RPI calculation.  But, don't you think it's pretty ridiculous to state that it would take an undefeated MAC season to get an at-large?

 

And I'm glad to see that you saw something in that post (undefeated season) that I didn't see.  I must need my glasses. 

Edited by skip-zip
edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

I'm glad that you and NWAkron know each other, and can interpret the meaning of his internet posts. 

 

I simply commented on what I was reading. 

I don't know him, I was simply offering my interpretation. You can tell that because i used the words "I took (it) to mean"

You are most certainly entitled to your own viewpoints.

Please excuse me for trying to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Glib Shanley said:

I don't know him, I was simply offering my interpretation. You can tell that because i used the words "I took (it) to mean"

You are most certainly entitled to your own viewpoints.

Please excuse me for trying to clarify.

 

No problem.  I wasn't intending to be nasty.  I just don't make a point to try to clarify someone else's position, or state what they intended to say, based on what they typed on an internet forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a farce that anyone was cheering for the Zips to lose the MAC tournament in hopes that we would be in position for an at-large bid. The fact of the matter is the only way Akron will ever receive anything better than a 12 seed is if they are perceived to be a better team than some of the at-large teams that currently eat up the 10-11 slots. There are typically a couple 1 bid conferences that produce an at-large caliber team each year(This year may be an odd exception). Often times those teams go on and win their conference tournament like Kent did in 2008 and use it to help further improve their seed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:champs: All I was saying is that at large discussion assumed we didn't win the MAC tournament.   And I think that the cards are stacked against a MAC team getting that ticket.   We ride this roller coaster every year. And considering all the upheaval in the standings being the #1 seed and the MAC champs is good odds.  I do appreciate the mind reading.  I, too, have psychic tendencies.  Hence the prediction of the Miami loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

None of us can be 100% certain, and I'm sure someone could do the RPI calculation.  But, don't you think it's pretty ridiculous to state that it would take an undefeated MAC season to get an at-large?

 

And I'm glad to see that you saw something in that post (undefeated season) that I didn't see.  I must need my glasses. 

 

Maybe not an undefeated MAC season, but I think it's fair to say the MAC as a whole is a one-bid league and it would take a special season from one team to make that change. 

 

I've only been following Zips Athletics for 10 years, so I'm not quite as seasoned as others, but can someone remind me of the last time the MAC earned an at-large bid to the Big Dance(not a literal large movement rhythmically to music), and what that team's record was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is that teams have figured out that strong perimeter defense focused on not giving open looks on 3's shuts down the Zips.  There's only one post player to worry about (Big Dog), so let him get his and focus on the shooters, none of whom have the ability to put the ball on the floor.  When's the last time anyone on this team faked a shot and went around a defender?  With only a single post threat and no threat of penetration, it makes the defense pretty easy.  Surprised it  didn't bite in the ass earlier in the season.

 

Now it's time for our coaching staff to make the adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bUAkronG said:

 

Maybe not an undefeated MAC season, but I think it's fair to say the MAC as a whole is a one-bid league and it would take a special season from one team to make that change. 

 

I've only been following Zips Athletics for 10 years, so I'm not quite as seasoned as others, but can someone remind me of the last time the MAC earned an at-large bid to the Big Dance(not a literal large movement rhythmically to music), and what that team's record was?

 

It would be the 1999 Redhawks who were led by Wally Szerbiak. They finished with a 24-8 record, 4 of those losses came in MAC play. There have been a few times since that a MAC team may have gotten in, but they ended up winning the conference tournament making the discussion mute.

 

Edit: They went on to lose in the Sweet 16

Edited by kreed5120
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

It would be the 1999 Redhawks who were led by Wally Szerbiak. They finished with a 24-8 record, 4 of those losses came in MAC play. There have been a few times since that a MAC team may have gotten in, but they ended up winning the conference tournament making the discussion mute.

 

well that's all hypothetical. Clearly that's not an option here. We are talking only about fact. Any idea what their RPI was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

It's a farce that anyone was cheering for the Zips to lose the MAC tournament in hopes that we would be in position for an at-large bid. The fact of the matter is the only way Akron will ever receive anything better than a 12 seed is if they are perceived to be a better team than some of the at-large teams that currently eat up the 10-11 slots. There are typically a couple 1 bid conferences that produce an at-large caliber team each year(This year may be an odd exception). Often times those teams go on and win their conference tournament like Kent did in 2008 and use it to help further improve their seed.

 

Ken+ got a #9 seed in 2008, and had 3 conference losses, and 6 total losses.

 

So, you are saying that Ken+ catapulted themselves from a #12 or lower, all the way up to a #9, just by beating Akron in their final game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bUAkronG said:

 

well that's all hypothetical. Clearly that's not an option here. We are talking only about fact. Any idea what their RPI was?

 

If you make the NCAA tournament as a 9 seed after winning your conference tournament, which Kent did, there is a pretty high chance that you would have gotten in regardless. I'm not sure what Miami RPI was, but their resume was built OOC and included wins over Notre Dame, Tennessee, and Dayton. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bUAkronG said:

 

Maybe not an undefeated MAC season, but I think it's fair to say the MAC as a whole is a one-bid league and it would take a special season from one team to make that change. 

 

I've only been following Zips Athletics for 10 years, so I'm not quite as seasoned as others, but can someone remind me of the last time the MAC earned an at-large bid to the Big Dance(not a literal large movement rhythmically to music), and what that team's record was?

 

That's fair.  I'll go along with that. 

 

It's funny you ask for some history, since I just commented about the 2008 Ken+ team.   They had 6 losses (3 conference losses) and finished the season with a #19 RPI and was awarded a #9 seed.  You'd think that they were a lock to get in, regardless of what happened in the MAC title game.  Especially since they apparently were very highly regarded by the committee. 

 

I usually ask everyone each year to sort of use this as a benchmark. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

Ken+ got a #9 seed in 2008, and had 3 conference losses, and 6 total losses.

 

So, you are saying that Ken+ catapulted themselves from a #12 or lower, all the way up to a #9, just by beating Akron in their final game?

 

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying they were a well respected team that year and would have had an excellent chance of getting in with one of the last few at-large spots had they lost to Akron. They wouldn't have been given a 9 seed if they weren't believed to be better than the 10 & 11 seeds that were behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bUAkronG said:

 

well that's all hypothetical. Clearly that's not an option here. We are talking only about fact. Any idea what their RPI was?

 

Miami in 1999 is a good one to look at, for sure.  I'm seeing a 22-7 record (must be the end of the regular season) with a #21 RPI and #64 SOS. 

 

I think they were definitely a case of benefitting from a tough OOC schedule, as Kreed just pointed out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...