Dave in Green

Yeah, I was afraid of what might happen in the second half. Interesting that MSU had Kentucky down by its largest margin of the season before finally losing. MSU seems to be a lot like the Zips in that they can be brilliant at times but not consistent.

Zips win over Mississippi State is starting to look a little better right now, as the Bulldogs lead #1 Kentucky by 13 at the half, 41-28.

Amen, brother. Two more Zips wins and one more Buffalo loss clinches it without having to worry about tiebreakers.

Miami finally comes through and beats Can't, 62-60. If the Zips beat BG tomorrow, they'll have a 3-game lead over Can't.

After winning the MAC tournament two years ago, OU had an RPI of #98 and SOS of #117. After winning the MAC tournament last year, UA had an RPI of #104 and SOS of #185. In any case, there's not a lot of difference between the #4 14th seed and the #1 15th seed.

As I said, last season his PT and shooting percentage were relatively flat and steady; this season his PT and shooting percentage have steadily fallen together. Quality of opponent, OOC vs MAC play, type of defense, etc., may have contributed to minor fluctuations in the curves. Obviously, we know that all shooters have good and bad games, which creates some fluctuation. But the trend correlation obvious on the graphs is between average PT and average shooting percentage.

Looking at Nitro's performance graphs for the last two seasons brings out an interesting fact: For much of last season when his PT was averaging 25-27-minutes per game, he consistently shot 3s at a 37-40 percent rate. Earlier this season when his PT was averaging 29-30 minutes per game, he was hitting 3s at a 37-48 percent rate. Later this season as his average PT fell down into the 20-minute per game range, his 3-point shooting fell on a similar curve down to the current 30 percent rate. Last season his PT and shooting percentage were steady; this season his PT and shooting percentage have fallen together. Conclusion: There's almost a direct correlation between Nitro's average minutes played and his 3-point shooting percentage -- the more he plays the better he shoots and the less he plays the worse he shoots. Nitro on StatSheet.com

So what would have been the highest-rated MAC team since 1999 that did not receive the conference's automatic bid and was snubbed by the NCAA tournament selection committee? Which MAC team had a season's body of work which was so good compared with other teams that there was widespread outrage that the team did not receive an at-large bid?

If you play in one of the weaker conferences and lose your conference championship and automatic NCAA tournament bid, your only hope of getting an at-large bid is to schedule a number of strong OOC opponents and beat most of them. The only reason the MAC is not a two-bid conference is because no MAC team has yet won enough of its OOC games to merit an at-large bid. The Zips OOC schedule was strong enough this season that if they had won a few more beyond Mississippi State and Marshall, they definitely would have been in the running for an at-large bid.

I guess I just don't understand how some Zips fans can be so focused on the bad and others on the good. Why not try to see both the good and bad and put it all in perspective? From my perspective, the Zips have underperformed in OOC game results and overperformed in MAC game results to date. It's disappointing that they didn't take the next step of winning enough OOC games against top 100 teams to merit NCAA tournament at-large consideration. But it's exciting that they have so far this season taken the next step in conference play with an 11-1 record and a 2-game lead over their nearest competitors with 4 games left in the regular season. If the Zips win 3 of the last 4, they will have their best MAC record ever and clinch their first ever MAC regular season championship. They can add to that by winning the MAC tournament and earning an invitation to the NCAA tournament for the 3rd time in the last 4 years. And if they do get to the NCAA tournament, they still have the firepower to win a game or two if they've learned from their past mistakes and execute to their full abilities. So, regardless of what's happened to date, the Zips are still in a position to make this their best season ever.

And that was before Tressel came onboard.

That sounds like the polar opposite of: Everyone needs to stop attacking Dambrot like he's the devil or something. I wasn't aware that anyone was doing either of the above. Did I miss something?

After all of the complaints on ZN.o over the years about the Zips' weak scheduling, one thing for which we can give KD credit is finally putting together a tougher strength of schedule. Over his first 7 seasons, KD's SOS averaged about #172 or 50th percentile among all D-I teams. This season the Zips final SOS is projected at #107 or about 30th percentile. SEASON ---- SOS 2004-2005 -- 134 2005-2006 -- 186 2006-2007 -- 217 2007-2008 -- 159 2008-2009 -- 174 2009-2010 -- 166 2010-2011 -- 170 2011-2012 -- 107 (projected) There's not much that can be done about the SOS within the MAC, which is at least decent in the East but really poor in the West. But the Zips' out of conference SOS this season is currently ranked #43 in the country. That's a stronger OOC SOS than national powers such as Syracuse, Kentucky and tOSU. So even though the Zips win-loss record isn't any better than previous seasons, it's been done against higher-ranked competition. That's recognized by the fact that the Zips' RPI is currently rated higher than ever -- #65 even with a 19-8 record. Their previous best RPI was #67 in 2006-2007 with a 26-7 record. So while it's fair to criticize what we perceive as going wrong, we should also acknowledge that not everything is going wrong. When playing at full strength, this Zips team has performed better against tougher competition than any previous Zips team. They aren't quite where we want them to be and they're surely not quite where they want to be. But the season is far from over and they still have a chance to learn from their mistakes and get it together for a final run.

Remember that a football helmet is not just a hard shell. There's a soft, compressible inner liner that absorbs impact by dissipating energy. The hard shell of the helmet stops instantaneously when it contacts another hard object. The head continues to move forward at a slower rate as the liner material compresses. When the liner material reaches full compression, the skull stops moving but the brain doesn't. The brain doesn't stop moving until it contacts the inside of the skull. That's where the concussion is sustained. The compressible materials used inside modern helmets is scientifically designed to dissipate energy. It's better at that than leather. Otherwise, they'd simply use leather inner liners inside the hard shells. As mass and velocity go up, kinetic energy increases exponentially. Bigger, faster football players generate greater energy to be dissipated on impact, leading to greater likelihood of injury. Looking at it scientifically, it would be fairly straightforward to calculate the energy generated from the impact of two football players by measuring their weights and top running speeds. This would in turn provide data that could help calculate the energy dissipation required in a helmet to mitigate forces of the brain impacting the inside of the skull to the point of eliminating concussion. I don't have a football helmet in front of me, but I'd guess there's not more than about an inch-thick layer of liner. Knowing the energy generated from the impact test above and the impact dissipation rate of the best helmet liner material would tell you how many inches of helmet liner would be required to dissipate enough energy to prevent concussion in the worst case impact. The question is, what would we do if the testing showed that 6-12 inches of padding would be required to totally eliminate concussions. Would we be prepared to accept the visual oddity of BIG helmet football to protect football players from multiple concussions that ultimately result in irreversible brain damage? Or would we say, big helmets are for sissies?

As I mentioned earlier: Zips are 40th in the country in 3-point shooting percentage. ORU is 292nd in the country in 3-point shooting defense. Considering that, I think it was poor coaching from ORU to lay off the Zips' 3-point shooters knowing that's one of the Zips' strong points. But, for whatever reason, the Zips could not knock down virtually uncontested 3s. So the ORU coaching gamble paid off by luck of the draw. We can only hope that other coaches will interpret this as a successful formula and leave our 3-point shooters virtually unguarded.

Not only that, last year's game was in Akron. With two teams as closely matched as these, homecourt advantage often makes the difference. After seeing how the Zips came so close to catching ORU in the second half, I'm pretty sure the Zips would have won this game if it had been in the JAR.

Doesn't appear there was anything wrong with the part of Old Titan's post that was quoted. Maybe OT posted something else that wasn't so nice and got banned. In any case, OT's second question deserves a response: I don't ever recall seeing a Zips player trying to steal the ball and score in the final few seconds when the game was out of reach and the other team was simply running out the clock. It makes me wonder if something else was going on. Could an ORU player have done something disrespectful to cause a couple of Zips players to react? Could there have been a little taunting going on? I see in the play-by-play that Morrison grabbed a defensive rebound with 35 seconds left and Abreu scored a 3-pointer with 2 seconds left. The play-by-play doesn't show a steal or turnover, which should have been recorded in the official scoring if it happened. Hard to say what really happened there with no video to review.

When I watch local TV news, I usually watch WKYC Channel 3 news at 11 pm. My best recollection is that they almost always cover UA in sports at roughly the same level as CSU and Can't. Last night, for example, they covered the CSU game first, which struck me as proper because that was a home game played in Cleveland. They covered Can't second, which also seemed OK because it was played locally within the Cleveland-Akron TV market. They covered the Zips game last, and it was the only one that was played outside the viewing area. But they did show some footage from the Zips game and gave it equal coverage. Another thing I pay attention to is the weather report. It seems as if they are pretty fair about mentioning the whole area and not just the immediate Cleveland area. For example, they almost always show and mention current and projected conditions at Akron-Canton Airport, which is perfect for me as I live just a few miles away from CAK. It goes without saying that anyone who remembers watching local news on Akron TV stations would find coverage of Akron from Cleveland-based TV stations to be lacking. Akron TV would focus mainly on the Akron area whereas Cleveland-Akron TV has to cover the entire area. The best you can hope for in that situation is to get coverage proportional to your local area's population within the larger TV market. I'll try to pay more attention to TV news in the coming weeks and see if I think Akron is getting proportional coverage.

Tough crowd! Regardless of what I intended to say, it was technically incorrect because I got lazy and left out a key adverb. Thanks for helping keep me on my toes. About half of the time you're above average and about half of the time you're below average.

I should add that rebounding alone does not get the job done, either. The MAC team with the best rebounding percentage is Buffalo. In fact, they have the 27th best team rebounding percentage in the country. They grab 53.9% of all missed shots in their games compared with 46.1% for their opponents. But their overall record is not as good as the Zips, and they are two games behind the Zips in the MAC standings. Their overall game is not as good as the Zips. So while Zips fans might hope to see their team improve its rebounding, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that other areas of the Zips' overall game are pretty darned good.

Looks as if the MAC is going to end up 4-7 after WMU finishes losing. Not good for getting respect from the NCAA tournament selection committee when it comes to seeding consideration for the MAC champion.

Let's see now, of the two seniors, the Serb played 25 minutes and was the second leading scorer and tied for top rebounder, while Nitro played only 12 minutes. I'm guessing that you are a big fan of Tree and Harney, and any time the Zips lose it's because the coach didn't play them enough or otherwise use them properly. Am I close?

It's hard to get past wanting the worst for Can't, even when the worst for Can't ends up hurting the Zips. We have to be more focused on what's best for the Zips, even if that occasionally means sucking it up and rooting for the Golden Felons. The higher Can't is ranked when the Zips beat them, the better it is for the Zips' RPI. The higher the Zips' RPI, the more likely the Zips are to get a higher seed in the NCAA tournament.

Ah, got it. I was thinking more of the Proposition Joe character comparison. And I have to agree with you and others who point out that being outrebounded 37-24 is an even bigger discrepancy than the 3-point shooting. Break even with ORU on rebounds and the Zips win easily. The Zips are only 128th in the country in rebounding percentage (percentage of missed shots rebounded at both the offensive and defensive ends). They have only a slight edge over all their opponents to date, grabbing 50.8% of rebounds compared with 49.3% for their opponents. They can offset a rebound disadvantage to many opponents with other team strengths and still come out on top. But when you start playing the better teams in the country, lazy rebounding is not going to get the job done. I don't know how you solve that in the short time left before the tournament. Rebounding is part training and part attitude. Tree has it for sure. Walsh is one of the better rebounding guards in the country. The Serb can be good at times. Zeke is decent considering he's more focused on blocking and altering shots. But, as a team, the Zips are only in about the 33rd percentile for snagging rebounds. I don't know how far that gets you in the NCAA tournament.

Yeah, the simple stuff is really the essence of 95% of life. Friendly character comparisons are always welcome. I've been associated with much worse characters.