Dave in Green

I don't think it's unfair to say that the Serb is not a superstar. But being selected to a powerhouse Serbian national team largely stocked with professional players shows that he has good potential to play pro ball somewhere. This has to be really good for his self-confidence. I think we can expect to see him raise the bar another notch for the Zips this season.

Buckzip, here's a productive suggestion made in all sincerity. In the second post you ever made as Buckzip on ZN.O more than 6 years ago, you started it this way: You set yourself up as the poor victim who was being bashed by some evil Zips fans. Your most recent posts continue this theme more than 6 years later. We've all been bashed here. I can show you some good zingers at me if you're interested. Come to think of it, some of those zingers were from you. You are not the sole source of the problem, but the nature of your responses contributes to the problem. After 6 years, we know that your method of trying to out-insult the tOSU insulters is never going to work on this Zips sports forum. Are you open to trying something else that might be more productive?

What do you mean "from now on?" It's been going on for nearly 6 bleepin' years: ZN.O Sep 23, 2005 You think it's going to go away on its own? Let's have a civil discussion and try to resolve it so we don't have to deal with it for another 6 bleepin' years.

It would really be helpful to know exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish here, Buckzip. Of course there is some hatred for tOSU and some (but not all) of its fans on this forum as well as for some other teams and some of their fans. This is a University of Akron Zips fan forum, not Switzerland. Of course some of the hatred can get juvenile and excessive. This is a sports forum, and all sports forums have a certain percentage of posts that could be called hateful, juvenile and excessive. If you want to prove that your team's fans are not as bad as another team's fans imply, what's the best way to deal with what you perceive to be hateful, juvenile and excessive comments -- add to them or rise above them?

Repeating what I said in my previous post, another example of trolling is someone who always claims to be a victim who never initiates attacks but only acts in self-defense on a particular subject drops into the middle of an unrelated thread and initiates a deliberately provocative post out of the blue. Are you going to try to claim you don't do that and never have?

And Dr Z ends the contest. A little bit of a drive, but Red, Wine & Brew appears to be unbeatable. I'll give it a try next time I'm up that way.

Nice article about the Zips' Canadian trip, the importance of the Serb to the team, the changes in the conference tournament, etc., on collegehoops.net : Akron Takes First Step Towards Repeat

Buehler's in Jackson is OK. My wife and I just shopped there today. But I'd estimate that West Point Market has at least four times more shelf space devoted to micros and imports than Buehler's in Jackson.

Actually, the definition of trolling is pretty clear, including the part about using bait to stir up a frenzy on a forum. For example, someone who always claims to be a victim who never initiates attacks but only acts in self-defense on a particular subject drops into the middle of an unrelated thread and initiates a deliberately provocative post out of the blue. That's textbook trolling. Another definition worth reading is the one for paranoia: Baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others. Paranoia can result in the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission. It's not trolling or attacking to consistently point out the futility of endlessly trying to defend one school's honor on another school's sports forum as classic Don Quixote tilting at windmills. I've always admired people with noble intentions who fight against impossible odds to do the right thing, even when it's obvious they are doomed to failure. But noble intentions do not justify ignoble tactics, which are not at all admirable or productive in a forum discussion.

The point is not who administers the punishment. The point is to prevent people from using loopholes to escape appropriate punishment. The point is that the NFL is not going to allow players who've violated NCAA rules to escape their punishment by jumping to the NFL.

Bingo. The NFL and the NCAA are on the same page that an NCAA player who violates rules and would be punished for his transgressions if he stayed in school should not be able to avoid punishment by jumping from the NCAA to the NFL. It's a lot like committing a crime in one country and crossing over the border seeking asylum in another country to escape punishment.

Looking for a scapegoat? Follow the money. Who does it ultimately come from, where does it go and for what reason? Obsessed sports fans may find that the path leads right to their mirrors. You there in the mirror are the one who controls the level of demand for whatever it takes for your favorite sports teams to win. Want to get the big money corruption out of sports? Cut it off at the source. The supply side is not the source of the problem. The supply side merely supplies what the demand side demands. Big money sports only exist because obsessed fans are willing to dump big money into sports. All the others are just trying to get a piece of the action from obsessed sports fans who so willingly give their financial support in the pursuit of having winning sports teams while turning a blind eye to the details of how it's accomplished.

Sounds a lot like the textbook definition of trolling.

It just struck me that the subhead on this thread is just as accurate now as when the thread was first posted: Women's soccer team just arrived in Ann Arbor now

What a great achievement for the women's soccer team and for soccer in general at UA!

There are more things to consider here beyond whether one player might be a little better than another player. A freshman would have to be absolutely spectacular to knock an established junior or senior out of a KD starting lineup. No one really knows what the net effect would be on the confidence of the junior/senior who lost his starting job. The net effect on overall team play might end up being negative, as it takes more than five good players to have a strong basketball team. In any case, starting does not automatically equate to most PT. It's possible for someone to come off the bench and end up playing more minutes than a starter. The key is to have the most effective players in the game at the right time against a given opponent. This can change from game to game. In most cases it makes sense to give proven veterans the respect of being starters unless it's absolutely undeniable to everyone -- including the affected players -- that the team is clearly better off with a freshman starting.

As a Zips fan, I completely understand that the MAC wants to send its best team to the NCAA tournament, as that team represents the entire MAC on the national stage. But OU was far from the best regular season team in the MAC two years ago, and they upset Georgetown in the first round. Would Can't have been able to do the same? Oh well, I remember when Dale Earnhardt haters used to beat up on NASCAR for having a point system that they thought favored Earnhardt and Richard Childress Racing. They said that if the point system was changed, Earnhardt wouldn't have been so dominant. What they failed to understand is that Childress set up the team, car and driver to be optimized for the existing NASCAR point system. If the system was different, the team and driver would have adjusted their style to the new system and done just as well. I have enough faith in KD as a coach to think that he can change his system to put more priority on the regular season as opposed to focusing on peaking at tournament time. After all, there's no immutable law that says Can't is always going to have the best regular season team in the MAC. I think the Zips will do just fine under the new format.

A lot have closed practices. This isn't 1960 anymore. I fixed it for ya! Hilltopper's math is way off, as usual. Terry Bradshaw would have been 12 years old in 1960. He was the first pick in the NFL draft in 1970. My dad and I watched him practice at Louisiana Tech around 1970 -- '68 and '69 to be exact. So if most college football practices are closed these days, then the Zips are no different from most other teams.

No, the article said that the three seniors would all get playing time, not significant playing time. Petersen will get playing time, just not as significant as the two starting seniors, Nitro and the Serb. Unlike the CBS writer, I didn't even have to interview KD to make yesterday's prediction about who his starting lineup is likely to be.

I wonder how many schools have their football practices open to anyone who wants to view versus how many are completely closed like the Zips? I recall when I attended Louisiana Tech back around 1970 that the practices were open. My dad and I would sit in the stands and watch Terry Bradshaw practice throwing unbelievable bombs that seemed to go almost goal line to goal line on the fly. Being able to attend those practices made us even more interested in attending the games.

Did LeBron James 'curse' the University of Miami?

Understanding KD's preference for veteran players experienced in his system, Here are my odds on starters when the season begins: 1. (100%) Zeke at center without question. He's the only pure center on the team, he's a junior, and he's darn good and getting better. No one else in the picture as a starting center, with Egner the likely backup. 2. (99%) Rico almost certainly at the point. He's the only pure point guard on the team, he's a sophomore, and he's darn good and getting better. Remote (1% chance) Walsh could get so good so fast to move from backup point to starter. 3. (99%) The Serb almost certainly at power forward. He's the second tallest player on the team, he's a senior, and he's darn good and getting better. Remote (1% chance) one of the other bigs could get real good real fast. 4. (95%) Nitro highly likely at wing guard. He had his breakthrough in his junior year, and he's a senior now. He'd have to choke or one of the other wing guards would have to get real good real fast for the starting job to change. 5. (95%) Q highly likely at wing forward. He got really good over the course of his sophomore season, and he's a junior now, so he's earned the start. It gets a little tricky here with Gilliam also being a talented junior. But with Q's year of experience in the Zips' system, the start at the beginning of the season goes to Q. As the season goes on, it's possible that Gilliam's performance might convince KD he's more effective as a starter and Q might prove more of a spark off the bench. It's also possible that Gilliam may be the perfect spark plug off the bench. The above lineup is almost certainly the starting lineup for the first few games of the season, and possibly for the whole season. But it's also likely that the percentages at many of the positions will shift as the non-starters get better and begin challenging for more PT. Some of the subs will get lots of PT as they show their abilities to perform in KD's system. Bumping one of the starters is possible but not likely. If more than one of the starters changes, it will mean that the new players as a group are pretty extraordinary.

By the way, Philip Scrubb is one of the better players the Zips will face this season. Prior to attending Carleton University, Scrubb led Vancouver College to three consecutive final fours. His VC coach Bill Disbrow, the winningest coach in B.C. prep history, said of Scrubb: "He is the most complete player I have ever coached. Scrubb has also played internationally for Canada's FIBA U18 and U19 teams. As a freshman at Carleton, he was named Canada's CIS rookie of the year. Before selecting Carleton, Scrubb was recruited by all the top Canadian universities as well as by such U.S. schools as Portland, Sacramento State, and New Mexico State. It's no embarassment that he went off on the Zips the same way he went off on the three other U.S. teams Carleton has played this year.

Carleton University is once again quick to post a box score. It was a lot closer on fouls than I thought. Same on rebounds. Zips won on steals and turnovers plus higher shooting and free throw percentages. No one who played had terrible stats. Rico proved he's physically fit by going 36 minutes. All in all a good performance against one of the best college basketball teams in Canada, especially considering the absence of the Serb. Carleton Box Scores Also, video highlights are up, along with a nice description of the coaching and playing from KD:

What if the newcomer is really close to appearing to be clearly the superior player, and appears to be improving on a steady basis? Wouldn't a coach want to put off the decision as long as possible to see if the newcomer can continue improving until he's clearly the superior player? Sure, ideally you want to pick all your starters as early as possible to get the starting lineup comfortable together. But when there's a really close competition between two players, especially at a critical position like QB, it would be foolish to rush the decision. I prefer that the coach is patient and is more likely to make the best decision based on as much data as possible. The good news about this is that Moore's performance is already close enough to Nicely's to cause indecision on picking a starter, even though he's a newcomer to the Zips team and less experienced than Nicely in the offensive system.