Dave in Green

Duquesne is not that far behind the Zips in RPI, and Valpo isn't that far behind Duquesne. And those two losses were by just 5 to Duquesne on a neutral court and by 3 to Valpo on their home court. I don't see how one of those losses is so much worse than the other. Points-wise, there were two bad losses -- by 24 to MTSU and by 21 to WVU. WVU has a much better RPI than UA, but MTSU is currently a few spots behind the Zips in RPI. I'm guessing the 24-point loss to a team with a slightly worse RPI than the Zips is the one being considered "bad."

@Spin, relax. I looked at the events listed at both venues and didn't have any comments to make about the events. Am I not allowed to stay focused on the physical layout of the facilities?

@Carol, you bring up a good point about the Zips offensive rebounding. I've taken a closer look at MAC stats to see how the Zips compare to other teams in their conference. Of course, there can be a little bit of apples and organges when it comes to number of rebounds. For example, teams that play at a faster pace and take more shots tend to miss more shots per game, so there are more rebound opportunities. So it's best to look at rebound percentage statistics rather than absolute numbers. Rebound percentage stats are based on the number of rebound opportunities in a game, which is in turn based on the number of missed shots at the offensive and defensive ends. Even then, there's a disparity in strength of schedules. Teams with the strongest schedules have probably played better rebounding opponents than those with weaker schedules. With that said, let's take a look at the rebounding of MAC teams to date: The Zips are tied with OU for 8th in the MAC in rebounding percentage at 49.1% (WMU leads at 53.4% and Toledo is 12th at 46.4%). The Zips are 4th in defensive rebounding percentage at 69.5% (NIU leads at 75.4% and Toledo 12th at 63.5%). The Zips are 10th in offensive rebounding percentage at 28.8% (WMU leads at 38.2% and EMU is 12th at 25.9%). So it's fair to say that the raw stats show the Zips to be slightly above average on defensive rebounding percentage, below average on offensive rebounding percentage and slightly below average on total rebounding percentage compared with other MAC teams to date. One way to improve offensive rebounding would be to give more playing time to the Zips players who are best at offensive rebounding. It isn't even close when it comes to who has the best offensive rebounding percentage. Tree grabs 17.1% of missed shots at the offensive end when he's on the floor. That's not only best on the Zips team and best in the MAC, that ranks Tree as 5th best in the country. There are only 4 D-I players in the country who grab a higher percentage of offensive rebounds when they're on the floor than Tree. The more minutes Tree plays, the better the Zips' offensive rebounding percentage will be. The Serb is second to Tree in offensive rebounding percentage at 8.5%, followed by Harney (8.3%) and Zeke (8.2%). Walsh is a distant 5th on the team at 4.4%. In defensive rebounding percentage, Tree again leads the Zips with a 20.2% rate. The Serb is second on the team at 17.2%, followed by Harney (17%), Marshall (13.8%), Walsh (11.9%) and Diggs (10.2%). So you could boost the Zips' rebounding percentage by giving more minutes to the best rebounders. But rebounding is only one aspect of the game. There are other statistical categories important to winning, and other Zips players may be stronger in those areas. It might also benefit the team to place a higher priority for all Zips players to go after rebounds. You'd just need to be careful not to have a focus on rebounding distract players from other aspects of the game where they're playing above average. Every team is relatively stronger or weaker than other teams in various statistical categories. Ultimately it comes down to the right balance of executing all phases of the game.

@Spin, I couldn't find an image of the Covelli Centre set up for a basketball game. I see they claim hockey seating for 5,700 and basketball seating for 5,900, so it's only a little smaller than what most of us seem to think would be ideal for Zips basketball. But there's nothing I can find that shows how they handle keeping basketball fans closer to the action when converted from the larger hockey rink. I did find one image of a concert setup that looks really nice. Covelli Centre Concert Image The WesBanco Arena website is pretty useless for detailed information. I found elsewhere that it seats about 5,400 for hockey. I see that the Wesbanco Arena (formerly Wheeling Civic Center) hosted WVU basketball for the 1999-2000 season while the WVU basketball arena was being renovated. While I couldn't find any basketball images from the WesBanco Arena, the images I did find show that the seating and overall quality of the arena appears to be inferior to the Covelli Centre. Wesbanco Arena Images I'll say again that I'm not against a multipurpose arena for Akron if a proper market survey shows that it can be profitable and if it is done right so the seating is not compromised for basketball. I could also live with a renovated JAR. I'm for whatever is most likely to increase local interest in Zips basketball and attract larger, noisier home crowds.

The question I would have is how many "big event" venues can NEO sustain? The really big events are going to the Q. No Akron arena is going to compete with the Q for top acts. People from all over NEO go to the Q for big events, and don't expect those big events to show up in places like Youngstown, Canton or Akron. As lance99 points out, smaller concerts in Akron are already accomodated by the The Civic and E.J. Thomas Hall. That leaves medium-size events for an Akron Arena. Are there really enough medium-size events that aren't already available at nearby facilities to make it worthwhile for Akron to invest in a new facility? I don't know the answer to that. I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm just asking the question. Since there's a proposed new arena in the Akron development plan, I guess the answer from the developers is, yes, there's a market here for a new arena. Exactly what that arena would be and what it would be expected to host has, to my knowledge, not been made public.

The story I got those stats from did not identify who the teams were. I couldn't find any stories that went that deep into their analysis. Below is a link to a 2004 story that goes into more detail about qualities the NCAA tournament selection committee looks at when determining at-large bids. It's an older story, but is well written and includes lots of details that other, more recent stories do not. NCAA Tournament Bubble Watch - Statistical Approach

Zips had 10 offensive rebounds to 8 for OU. For the season to date, the Zips are ranked 4th out of 12 MAC teams in offensive rebounding.

I agree with what Rico said in his interview after last night's game: “We have a real deep group. We are nine-deep and all of us can honestly start.” KD is still experimenting with those 9 legitimate starters to see which combination of starting 5 plus 4 players coming off the bench ends up producing the best overall game results. It's not a simple matter of "I like this one guy more than that one guy." It's about how different groups of players work together under different game conditions in different parts of the game. It's about finding 4 potential starters whose egos are not easily bruised by coming off the bench instead of starting. Q is a great wing player, whether as a wing forward or wing guard. But he's also the best available backup PG on the team. He has to be available to run the point when Rico is resting on the bench. Walsh is more than a "nice" player. He's by far the Zips' best 3-point shooter (26 of 47 for 55%). Only the Serb, Zeke and Tree have more rebounds than Walsh. He rarely turns the ball over. Walsh's offensive rating, which measures all aspects of offensive play, is the best of any Zips player, 3rd best in the MAC and 83rd best in the country. He's a complete player whose contributions to the team should not be underestimated.

RPI is only one of many considerations for a team receiving an at-large invitation to the NCAA tournament. Below is the average percentage of teams from the 2006-2010 seasons for various ranges of RPI that received at-large invitations: RPI Range / % Teams Invited (2006-2010) 01-29 / 99% 30-39 / 80% 40-49 / 50% 50-59 / 37% 60-69 / 11%

The game is still basketball, the conference is still the MAC, the arena is still the JAR and the coach is still KD, so much of what we see will be the same or similar to what we're used to seeing. The new, more dynamic players and deeper bench are precisely what create the difference in overall team performance compared with previous Zips teams, which is obvious to me. It's taken more time to be obvious how this team is developing due to the nature of integrating 4 new players into the rotation, the suspensions and the injuries. They've had some highs and lows, and there will be more along the way. The most important measure for me is my internal pessimism meter during the course of a game. There were times during last night's game that previous Zips teams would have had me suffering acute discomfort that they were letting the game get away from them. I enjoy watching this Zips team even when they're behind without my internal pessimism meter spoiling the show. That's the difference for me. Your mileage may vary.

After the game, Hilltopper and I were discussing over dinner at a local restaurant the bad old days of long scoring droughts and the fall off in skills when the subs came in. No more. It doesn't even matter to me any more which 5 of the top 9 Zips players are on the court at any given time. They're all contributors in some way, whether scoring points, dishing off, rebounding, playing D. I can't imagine all 9 of these guys being so cold from the field that they couldn't find a way to score. It's a different kind of Zips basketball from what we're used to seeing. Yeah, they still make some of the same old mistakes, and they also make some creative new mistakes. But they have the talent and physical ability to offset mistakes with brilliant plays. There's never been any doubt in my mind that this edition of the Zips basketball team would be more entertaining to watch than any in recent memory. Most importantly, in their first 3 conference contests they've demonstrated the ability to do whatever is necessary to close out close games. I'm a happy Zips basketball fan right now.

Everyone is all over the map when it comes to rating MAC teams. Might as well throw in a couple of other rating systems. Pomeroy rates the MAC as follows: 69. Akron 78. Ohio 83. Buffalo 95. Can't 143. BSU 154. BGSU 166. WMU 180. Miami 209. CMU 255. Toledo 294. EMU 339. NIU RPI says: 66. Ohio 87. Buffalo 97. Akron 112. Can't 128. WMU 159. CMU 187. BSU 209. BGSU 227. EMU 236. Miami 277. Toledo 341. NIU

@ROCK1, you bring up a good point: It's important to benchmark what has happened to attendance at other places that built new arenas in order to estimate what kind of attendance bump the Zips basketball team might expect from a replacement for the JAR. It takes a combination of good facilities, good marketing, a winning team and a motivated fanbase to get the best attendance. It should be possible to measure what happened to attendance at other places where nothing changed significantly except for replacing an old arena with a new one.

I just watched the video of Harney's final shot over Black a dozen times. Black was shuffling his feet and moving his body around to set up in Harney's path right up until the second Harney left his feet to take the shot. Harney tried to check his momentum as much as he could to avoid contact. There was minimal contact, and Black took a flop. It could be debated whether Black had position established or whether Harney checked up enough on his drive. It was a good non-call by the ref, especially on a game-winning shot in the last second of the game.

@skip-zip, I recall that we've discussed the finer points of a new arena enough times to make my head spin. But we always seem to come up with some new data to consider, so the multiple discussions aren't wasted. Thanks to thoughts that others have posted here along with some of my own research work, I think I have a better idea of what I'd like to see and what I wouldn't like to see in a new arena where the Zips would play basketball. Since I'm primarily a basketball fan, I'd prefer an arena optimized for basketball. But I could be satisfied with a multipurpose arena as long as the basketball seating isn't compromised to the point that it's noticeably inferior. Hopefully the design of any proposed new arena would be based on one of the better existing facilities. And if it does get built, hopefully corners aren't cut like they were in the JAR. I'm ready to protest if I see an inferior design proposal.

When you've got it, flaunt it: Coach Bowden

If you look closely, some of the photos show better solutions than others to the problem of filling the 53 feet difference at each end between a hockey rink and a basketball court. Some of the side views, like the 4th one down from the top, show that the "fill in" seats at each end of the court have an extremely shallow angle to them, while the permanent seats behind them angle up at a much steeper slope. A dedicated basketball arena would have steeply sloping rows of seats right on top of the court. A poorly designed arena with an ice rink with shallow seating near the court will push the crowd further from the court and make it more difficult to see over the people seated in front of you. The better designed multipurpose arenas minimize this problem, but probably cost more to build and maintain.

Harney led the team tonight with 12 points on 5 of 7 shooting from the field, though he did miss 3 of 4 free throws. He was tied for second on the team in rebounds with 4, and had 2 assists and a steal against 1 turnover. In the 33 minutes he's played in 3 games since returning to action, Harney has scored 33 points and has hit 12 of 17 from the field.

@Big Zip, and I tried so hard to be clear ..... You said you've sat in seats right behind the Cavs bench at the Q and don't see the problem. The Cavs bench is on the side of the court, where measurements of hockey rinks and basketball courts confirm that there's no seating proximity problem. The seating proximity problem is at the ends of the court, not the sides.

Harney was averaging 20 minutes per game prior to his 5-game suspension. Knowing the way KD operates, any player who's suspended has to earn his PT back. In his first game back, Harney played 9 minutes against Marshall, followed by 10 minutes against Miami. Tonight, Harney played 14 minutes. More importantly tonight, KD trusted him enough to sub him in with 2 minutes left and the Zips down by 3. Harney responded by hitting a critical 3-pointer to tie the game. And most important of all, KD subbed Harney in with 9 seconds left in the game and the Zips trailing by 1. Harney responded by hitting the game winner with 1 second left. Harney will be back to 20 minutes or more per game before too many more games, and so will Tree.

Well, we now know at least one player who gets to be on the floor late during close games.

I'll try one more time: Width of hockey rink (85 feet) minus width of basketball court (50 feet) = 35 feet total difference = 17.5 feet difference on each side. That 17.5 feet on each side between the edge of the basketball court playing area and the first row of spectator seating is not significantly different from the space set aside for teams, scorers and media to sit at an arena optimized for basketball. Conclusion: Width is not a significant problem. Length of hockey rink (200 feet) minus length of basketball court (94) feet = 106 feet total difference = 53 feet difference at each end. That 53 feet at each end between the edge of the basketball court playing area and the first row of spectator seating is excessive and places spectators significantly further from the basketball court than an arena optimized for basketball. Conclusion: Length is a significant problem.

Toledo plays Ball State tough and ties the game, 68-68, with 7 seconds left. But Jerrod Jones scores a layup with the clock expiring to secure a narrow 70-68 win for the Cardinals.

@lumberjack, I don't see anything wrong with what you said and I don't see anything wrong with what I said. We're all just making observations based on our own personal experiences. I appreciate your perspective and I hope that you can appreciate mine. My basketball background is that my dad was a professional player/coach back in the 1930s. He taught me a lot about basketball at an early age, and it has been my favorite sport for the past 60 years. Since you have personal experience at the coaching level, I'm sure you know better than I do what it's like to deal with talk of players leaving a team because they don't agree with the way the coach is playing them. Seriously, don't let anything I or anyone else may say discourage you from posting here.

@lumberjack, aspiring college players should carefully pick a coach and team they believe would be best for their style of play, and then trust the coach they selected to make the right decisions regarding getting the most out of each individual within the context of what's best for the team. Prima donnas should look for coaches who feature stars, not for coaches who emphasize team play. Any player who signed up to play for KD and the Zips should have known exactly what they were getting into. KD has never catered to stars. KD tries to coach talented individuals into becoming the best team players. He typically spends most of the season finding the right combination of players to have on the floor against any type of team at different points of the game depending on a number of variables. Each player has a chance to demonstrate what he's capable of doing under a variety of circumstances throughout the season. The results show up at the end of the season, where the Zips are typically at their peak. Some of the newer players are already taking PT away from some of the veterans. But it isn't just given to them. They've had to earn it. If they keep performing better, they'll earn larger chunks of PT. Tree, Harney, Gilliam and Q are not the only scorers on this Zips team. For example, Q may have the best average on the team of 20.7 points per 40 minutes played. But it's not Tree, Harney or Gilliam who's second to Q. It's Brian Walsh with 18.6 points per 40 minutes. And when it comes to total offense, Walsh leads the Zips in offensive rating at 173.4 followed by the Serb at 161.4. In addition to scorers, you also need players who can handle the ball and get it to their teammates without turning it over. The Zips player with the best assist-to-turnover ratio is Nitro. Lots of things to consider about who contributes most to the Zips total offense. And then there's the whole subject of defense. In addition to scoring, you have to stop the other team from scoring. Point is, it takes a balance of different players with different skill sets to make a complete team, and a good coach will figure out when each player should be on the floor and how long they should remain there in order to produce the best results for the team. KD is a good coach. Threats about players transferring or moving on because they aren't being catered to does not help promote good team chemistry.