kreed5120

If easy wins is all Akron is after, I don't expect Dambrot to make any quotes like this if another 25+ win Akron misses the tournament. "We've got a 28 RPI," he said. "The numbers don't lie, do they? It's all skewed for the big boys. So if Cincinnati or Tulsa or UConn had a 28 RPI, I think they would be in the tournament, but we're not going to get in the tournament." Edit: I by no means feel we should replace Dambrot unlike a vocal minority on this forum believe. That doesn't mean I have to agree 100% with everything he does.

Fair point. Edit: I suppose at this point I'm holding out hope that Akron only agreed to this tournament because they were promised someone else of note would be included. A big Georgia school would make the most sense as the travel cost would be low and playing in a tournament in Savannah could attract alumni who live a distance away from campus. The same way Cleveland is an appealing place for OSU to play and they are at times willing to sacrifice money to play there. Looking now Savannah metro is about the size of the Canton/Massillon area so that doesn't even sound that appealing for those Georgia schools. If it's just another 2 RPI ~200 teams, I'd love to hear Dambrot's reasoning for participating.

Yeah, I'm not trying to pretend I know how things play out as I only know what I've seen in a couple articles. I don't see any program licking their chops to play in this tournament, but could see a program receiving a large guarantee to play in it as they would be the headlining name and be the one that sells tickets. You have to remember Georgia Tech plays in the ACC. They don't need to play a brutal OOC schedule as they will have plenty of opportunities to rack up quality wins in conference play.

I could see it being appealing to a Georgia or Georgia Tech or some other larger school in the area. It's no Villanova, but it beats the crap teams that are there currently.

I found a wiki page for the tournament. It says it's going to be an 8 team tournament with 2 teams TBD. Assuming that's accurate and assuming the 2 teams to be added are quality, I will be able to stomach this tournament assuming Akron faces them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_Invitational

This looks like a tournament Miami or Bowling Green should be playing in. Regardless if you feel Buffalo has emerged as ESPN favorite MAC school, I can guarantee you that there will be plenty of other MAC schools playing in better tournaments than this. One is not like the others... 2015 RPI numbers and record at end of regular season 34 Akron(25-8) 191 Radford(14-15) 194 Mercer(17-14) 218 E Carolina(12-20) 226 Air Force(12-18) 243 Georgia Southern(12-17)

The tournament at UTEP is what I assume to be the Sun Bowl Invitational. In 2014, it featured UTEP, Kent State, Alcorn State, and North Dakota State. Edit: in 2015 is featured UTEP, Sam Houston State, Norfolk State, and UC-Irvine. It looks to be a tournament that is designed to give UTEP 2 extra home games vs. 2 mid-majors. http://www.sunbowl.org/system/documents/documents/6/original/Basketball_All-Time%20Results%20&%20All-Tournament%20Teams.pdf

http://www.wjcl.com/news/sports/new-college-basketball-tournament-coming-to-savannah-in-november/157364340/story Edit: Nothing that I see makes me too thrilled for the tournament. It would pretty much be a true road game if we face Georgia Southern or Mercer. There are also a couple other teams in the Carolinas/Virginia region that will be playing. Akron going in I'd have to say is the best program on the men's side in what looks to be a pretty irrelevant tournament.

I'd say there is legitimacy to Akron's claims. Raising admission standards to become more selective has become a crossed the board a common thing for Ohio public universities. It's also no coincidence that the University has taken measures to expand the honors college as those people are much more likely to graduate on time than some person who got an 18 on their act and averaged a 2.5 in high school. http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/state-funding-pushes-up-college-standards/nnN8b/

I agree and I feel I addressed that. The fact we played them is the selling point, not the fact we lost by 20. "I like the fact that we have a team of that caliber on our schedule. It's a good recruiting tool in the sense that it gives a potential recruit that was overlooked because he wasn't tall enough or athletic enough or played at a smaller school a chance to shine on a big stage."

For a University that consistently mismanages money, I'd expect no less...sigh

Fair point. It would most likely be some sort of blend. What sort of blend would depend highly on how far out they feel they could get an arena built. <5 years - very safe 10 years - moderate 15+ years - more aggressive

I like the fact that we have a team of that caliber on our schedule. It's a good recruiting tool in the sense that it gives a potential recruit that was overlooked because he wasn't tall enough or athletic enough or played at a smaller school a chance to shine on a big stage. We get that win and we go from not even being in the bubble discussion to a serious at-large candidate. I just feel it would be a step backwards if Akron views playing a potential top 5-7 team tough for 17 minutes and not losing by 40 as an accomplishment.

Historically the market has returned 8%-10%. Easy in a downturn market to think that is an unachievable mark, but 3 years ago, I would have scoffed at such a pitiful return. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html

Perhaps if we took them to the wire and lost in heartbreaking fashion, I could see it. BUT I can't imagine Dambrot is going to too many high school recruits houses and saying "Come to Akron we're good. We only lost to Villanova by 20."

It's not hard for a mid-major to hang with a top 25 team for a half. You see it all the time in March Madness. Where those teams pull away is in the 2nd half as attrition settles in and the team with more depth pulls away.

Proper term I should have used is invest. Considering the market just bottomed out, or at least I hope it did, we should expect to see a decent 10-15 year ROI. Edit: Assuming a modest 8% return, 10 million today would be 30+ million 15 years from now. Even adjusting for a 3% inflation that would be 20+ million in todays dollars.

I certainly hope nothing huge. They will be getting pennies back on the dollar for anything they put into that place. I'd rather just see them put that money in a separate account, let it grow interest, and use it 10-15 years from now towards a new arena. Edit: I'd be all for buying those lights and stuff that they had rented for the Kent game. It helped create an exciting atmosphere and is something they can take to a new arena.

Thanks for posting. It really hit home. I really didn't have a team to cheer for in the field, but now I do.

Perhaps a preferred walk-on with chance of competing for scholarship next season?

Yeah, one has to think it would be an attractive tournament particularly to any team on the western half of the US. It has potential to grow into something.

I feel this cheering for all the teams in your conference started in SEC football as fans would flaunt how great their conference is. It trickled to the other conferences as B1G and PAC-12 fans just wanted to shut them up. Go to any PAC-12 message board and you'll see posts about how they are disrespected because they aren't on the east coast.

I'm not disputing the fact that B1G fans cheer for other B1G schools to do well other than UM. I feel that silence you were hearing though was people going oh crap there goes by bracket. They were projected to go deep in virtually every bracket and on ESPN they were the 2nd most popular pick to win the tourney. I know that's what caused my silence.

Virginia last year passed a law that limited the fees schools could charge to subsidize sports programs. I wonder if this is something that you will see trickle into other states in the near future? http://pilotonline.com/sports/mcauliffe-signs-bill-that-limits-athletic-student-fees/article_337e7bec-d46e-5e15-bba6-6fc8de3a5f01.html

Profiting off of football while still being a student athlete put their amateurism into question hence why it isn't allowed and hence why the NCAA came down on them. If the players bad mouthed Bowden and the other coaches, I'd expect them to get punished. We're talking about owning a gun here. There are more guns owned in this country than there are US citizens. I'm willing to venture to guess some player on every FBS team owns a gun, most likely several people. My grandma who is nearly 80 owns a handgun. She hasn't fired it in many years as she owns it for protection. I'm not some gun enthusiast. I don't own a gun and only shot a gun a handful or so of times in my entire life, but I can respect someone's constitutional right. If Bowden or anyone else has a problem with a student owning a gun in a dangerous neighborhood, they can kiss away their chances of me ever donating another cent to the university.