Zippy87

This is the type of thing Akron should consider. The cost of these concession items are all dirt cheap to make. It would absolutely draw students and families more.

Size disadvantages show up beyond rebounds - one of the reasons we struggled offensively against Arizona was because of their length. If Brisco can play and Okonkwo/Lyles but take a step further, I do think they'll be OK. Their not using the open spot on a post tells me they believe in Brisco.

The point is saying Evan shot 33% as support for the argument that he has shot better is weakened by the small sample size. The rest of what you said I pretty much agree with, though.

Mahaffey's 33% as a freshman came on 12 attempts, while Gray's 30% came on 56 attempts. Huge difference. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just wouldn't count on it.

4 of our 7 losses came in games with a significant discrepancy in total rebounds, including arguably 3 of the best OOC opponents we faced: Arizona (53-22), St. Mary's (55-26), Yale (49-26), and Milwaukee (46-28). It wasn't just a bad matchup or two. Any good team with any kind of size gave us issues.

Gray did shoot a respectable 30% as a sophomore before struggling as a junior and then rebounding as a senior. Evan has never really hit outside shots in his collegiate career. I'd rather they focus on developing some inside scoring ability with him - he could be a taller version of Tribble (minus the 3s) on offense, slashing to the rim.

I'm not moving any goalposts. You brought up Drake to support that size wasn't an issue. I noted they were much bigger overall, adding important context IMO. Size wasn't just an issue against Arizona this year. St. Mary's was basically the same.

Drake's starting lineup: 6'8" 6'6" 6'5" 6'4" 6'3" Akron's starting lineup this year: 6'8" 6'3" 6'3" 6'2" 5'11" The smallest player on Drake's entire roster was 6'3". They had good size throughout their rotation.

Baltic and Keely were both 6'9" (I know, it's close enough) but moreso, I hesitate to believe what worked in 2012 will work in a post-NIL environment. P4 teams have realized the best path to winning now is to combine the blue chip prospects they've always been able to get with upperclassmen who establish themselves as stars at smaller programs. The result is more complete teams than the groups like OU faced to reach the Sweet Sixteen. I do agree getting a higher seed would be huge - but I also think having at least sufficient size and rebounding is vital to knocking off a top seed. The fact that they're adding Evan instead of someone with more size is still somewhat worrisome to me, but it also shows me a big vote of confidence in further improvements from Okonkwo and Lyles, and Brisco being able to play some impactful minutes next season.

Agree to disagree. You absolutely need good post play, and Evan isn't guarding someone like Tobe Awaka on Arizona. But maybe Brisco can.

A few thoughts on Evan: - Seems like a high character young man, so I'm sure he will fit in with our established culture. - I worry about his offensive game. I've only seen highlights, but 22.6% career from 3 Point territory and 52.3% from the FT stripe would've been at the bottom for us this year. - But maybe we don't need that much offense? He looks like an elite defender, and that's something I'm not sure we had this year. He'll get to know Suder (and players like him) well. - My biggest concern is what he is not - and that's a post player (unless they play to convert him). I know the coaches are smart and know it was an issue against better teams this year, and just running that back isn't good enough. So I'm taking that as them being high on Rich Brisco and their believing in him as worthy of playing next season.

Makes me feel a little better knowing we got a really tough draw.

I'm sure they can afford it, but the question may be if it's wiser to have extra scholarships or put that money into the other players.

We've let them off the hook twice - the NIT OT game and the regular season loss at the buzzer.