Dave in Green

I admit that I don't follow other Zips sports the way I do basketball. But that kind of golf performance against the Big Ten is starting to get into the realm of the Zips soccer team. I'm really impressed.

No one has a monopoly on hypocrisy. It's part of the human condition. It's always easier to see in others than in ourselves.

Let's be honest here. It's easy to be a fan of winning. When teams win, everyone's onboard. No one is a fan of losing. When teams lose, only the most loyal fans are onboard. The fewer fans who are onboard when a team is losing, the weaker the fan base. Plain and simple, UA has a weak fan base. Too many are only there for the winning and not for their team, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health for as long as we both shall live.

Right, you can make a copy of the copy recorded on a cable company DVR by hooking up another recording device (VCR, computer video capture card, etc.) to the output of the DVR. It will just be a re-encoded signal instead of a direct digital copy, so there will be some quality degradation. If cable companies didn't encrypt their DVRs, you could make direct digital copies with no image degradation.

If you have it on a cable (Time Warner) DVR, that's a tough nut to crack as they have it set up with proprietary encryption software to keep consumers from being able to access that video. If you own your own DVR (Tivo), then it's a lot easier to access. copy and share.

Guess we old timers need to get with the times. The NCAA quit using Prop 48 in 1995, when it was replaced with the even tougher Prop 16. The NCAA’s eligibility requirements became even stricter when delegates to the 86th NCAA Annual Convention passed Proposition 16. Prop 16’s impact arrived in two phases—the first on August 1, 1995, and the second exactly one year later. Under the first phase, NCAA leaders bumped up the number of required core courses from 11 to 13, and added two elective courses to their new minimum standard. Left unchanged by prop 16 were the SAT/ACT and GPA requirements. In the second phase, the NCAA replaced one of the two electives with English. With this decision, student-athletes were now required to complete four years of English instead of three. And if that wasn’t enough, new SAT/ACT and GPA requirements also changed in 1996. The NCAA instituted a sliding scale that combined SAT/ACT scores and GPA in a minimum of 13 core classes. Now, the student-athlete who earns a 2.0 GPA must combine it with a minimum 900 SAT score to be eligible for Division 1 competition. The student-athlete who earns a 2.5 GPA can score 700 and be eligible. With these changes, Proposition 16 effectively superseded Proposition 48. NCAA's Clearinghouse Rules - Who's Looking Out for the Student-Athlete?

The more of your posts I read, the more I become a Zipmeister fan. Please never get discouraged from posting here.

The Colonial Bank fraud trial began earlier this week. So far, no direct references to the failed bank's former CEO, Bobby Lowder. I won't bother reporting on the ongoing trial unless there is a direct connection made involving Lowder's management of Auburn athletics. So far the testimony only hints at the fact that the level of corruption at the bank was so deep that Lowder, known for his micromanagement style, is unlikely to have not known about it. More directly related to college football, it appears that the rumor about the NCAA starting to tighten up on enforcement of recruiting rules is starting to come true: NCAA classifies Rivals as a recruiting service

Juvie invasion.

I get it. It's always fun to make fun of the A beat B, and B beat the national champion logic. It just takes a little of the fun out of it to be reminded of the Zips painful loss to CSU. Then again, it's another reminder that the soccer Zips are

San Diego State's 2009 recruiting class was ranked #15 in the country and #1 among non-BCS schools, according to Hoop Scoop. If transfers were included, their 2009 class would have been closer to #5 in the country. SDSU is pretty deep in talent for a team that's not a traditional national basketball power. I think we all agree that Zeke's junior and senior seasons offer the best possibility for the Zips to produce a good winning percentage, decent national ranking, and potential tournament run. To accomplish that, Zeke's playing will need to be significantly improved. Even then, he can't do it by himself. The rest of the team has to gel, and there are a lot of question marks. The potential is there, but it must be fully realized. Beyond that, the odds are still badly stacked against any MAC team getting an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament. About two-thirds of the Zips regular season and MAC tournament games are against other MAC teams, whose generally low RPI is going to drag down the Zips SOS and RPI. The average RPI of all the MAC teams the Zips play is probably in the 150-200 range, so the Zips would have to play a really tough OOC schedule to offset that. Not only that, they'd have to win a good number of those tough games to pump up their RPI. In the end, SOS is not as important as simply winning games. Win enough games against any decent level of competition, and even a MAC team could get consideration for an NCAA at-large bid. Studying the SOS, RPI and winning percentages of the best teams who previously did not receive NCAA bids will give a realistic benchmark for what the Zips would have to achieve to even be in the conversation. In my humble opinion, if the Zips (or any other MAC team) lose in the MAC tournament championship game next season, they would need to have no more than 4 or 5 losses on the season to be considered for an NCAA at-large bid.

I see your Bucks half is in control today, as a pure Zips fan wouldn't think to post something like that on a Zips forum. I think you missed the rest of the thread. Either that or you are trying to pick a fight. Either way, I'm not biting. I didn't miss the rest of the thread, and I'm not trying to pick a fight. It just struck me as odd for a Zips fan to think in terms of bringing up CSU's win over the Zips soccer team in this thread. Then again, this thread is loaded with sarcasm, so there's probably nothing here to be taken seriously by anyone.

I see your Bucks half is in control today, as a pure Zips fan wouldn't think to post something like that on a Zips forum.

The why did K.e.n.t. fans not protest "The Play"? Are you saying K.e.n.t. fans are somehow better than Akron fans? Rasor is the only person in the free world that saw some controversial, protestable travesty at the end of that game. I'm still waiting for a description of "The Play." Ford didn't grouse at the end of the game because, believe it or not, there was nothing to grouse about. End of non-story. Judging from your response, I'm obviously not doing a good job of explaining my position on this. Let me try to put it in clearer terms: 1. At least some Can't fans DID protest. We happened to be sitting in the midst of a number of Can't fans, and they were grumbling loudly about the refs missing the call. So, no -- no one is saying that Can't fans are somehow better than Akron fans. 2. There was no foul call to be missed. Replays showed that both blocks at the end of the game were clean. There was no controversy. 3. Ford telling his players not to try to start a controversy was the right move because there was nothing to grouse about. 4. If Ford had not told his players not to try to start a controversy, some of them might have. While their complaints might have been dismissed as being the sign of a poor loser, it still would have distracted from the Zips celebration. Therefore, its a good thing that Ford told his players not to try to make it a controversy. Is it clear to you now that we are not debating whether or not there was a controversial call? We agree that there wasn't one, and I didn't read into Rasor's remarks that he thought there was one, either. Whether or not anyone thought there was a controversial call is irrelevant to the fact that Ford told his players not to try to turn it into a controversy. As for Ford showing "class" in making that move, it depends on Ford's motives. If his primary motive was to prevent his players from raining on the Zips championship parade, then, yes, it was a classy move. If his primary motive was to prevent his own players from looking stupid by trying to turn a non-controversial call into a controversy, then he was just being smart. Apparently Rasor elected to interpret Ford's move as classy rather than smart. Since I don't have the power to read minds and know Ford's intent at the time, my only observation is that, for whatever reason he had for doing so, Ford telling his players not to gripe about the last play was a good move for all involved.

That's odd. The wording of your link indicates that Senderoff was named new head coach at Can't. But clicking on the link leads to a "page not found" message. And when you search the WEWS website for Senderoff, there are no hits.

History tells us if the play had been reversed, with a Zips player being blocked on the game's final shot, one or more Zips fans on ZN.O would have questioned whether the Zips player was fouled instead of getting cleanly blocked. That's just the nature of being a rabid fan reacting to a painfully close loss, whether or not the call was even close to questionable. We Zips fans are pretty familiar with the general character of some Can't players, and it wouldn't have surprised us if some of those players had tried to rain on the Zips parade. If Ford was in fact proactive in telling his players not to make an issue out of the last play, then I do give him credit for having the presence of mind to try to do the right thing at a difficult time when there had to be many different thoughts running through his head.

Low aimer or realistic? While there's nothing at all wrong with being optimistic, high aimers might want to check the top six teams to be snubbed by the NCAA selection committee for this season's tournament. The Zips would have to exceed the accomplishments of these six teams in order to have a remote chance of being considered for an at-large bid next season. Note that one of the snubbed teams had an RPI of 44. 2011 NCAA Tournament Bracket Snubs

Oh, both teams definitely deserved to be there according to the format of the tournament. That's just the nature of the beast in all these tournaments. The team that gets hot in the playoffs and carries that heat through the championship game usually ends up as champion while better overall teams may stumble along the way. Sometimes the champion is the best overall team for the whole season and sometimes not. Personally, I'd take Ohio State or Kansas in a best of seven championship series against UConn, Butler, Kentucky, VCU, or any other team in this season's tournament.

Honestly, neither team belonged in the national championship game. Both just happened to get on really hot streaks at tournament time, and Butler's hot streak cooled off a game too soon. The two best teams over the course of the whole season were Ohio State and Kansas. But with the best players leaving for the NBA after their freshman seasons, it's pretty tough for anyone to put together a veteran talented team that can dominate from beginning to end of the season. Kentucky, for example, had four underclassmen picked in the first round of the NBA draft after last season. Imagine what Kentucky might have done this season if all those guys had been back.

As discussed in another thread, I was just hoping this would be a close game down to the wire, and that the following wouldn't happen:

Worst shooting ever. Now I understand how YSU beat Butler.

Skip, nope, I just don't get your logic on this, and I'm really trying hard. You say you don't want the Zips to schedule top 10 teams, but you complain that the ones the Zips did schedule weren't strong enough. At one time or another during the season, Zips opponents Cleveland State, Dayton, Temple, Minnesota and Miami (FL) were all ranked fairly highly, and they all finished the season with RPIs between 29 and 81. So I don't know which teams you would find worthy of adding to the Zips OOC schedule, which is already pretty close to the OOC SOS of such teams as Butler and VCU. I repeat that I'm not against adding one or two tougher games in place of one or two weak sisters. But scheduling a much larger number of tougher OOC games when your team hasn't yet shown that it has the ability to win a single one continues to strike me as illogical. I'm just not buying into the concept of scheduling tougher than you've already proven you might be able to handle. Maybe it's because my parents taught me I had to finish everything on my plate before I could get seconds of anything. I'm not at all afraid of challenging the Zips. I thought that Cleveland State, Dayton, Temple, Minnesota and Miami (FL) were all good, top 100 RPI challenges. Unfortunately, not one of the challenges was met. It will take a better Zips team to be up for those challenges and produce at least a win or two. Until they reach that point, I see no value in overscheduling tough games the Zips have yet to prove they can handle.

Skip, if you take a little kid, tie an anchor to his feet and throw him into a pool, you create the "opportunity" for him to become the world's greatest swimmer. But most likely you have condemned him to drowning. Creating a murderer's row OOC schedule creates more "opportunities" to pull the occasional upset. But most likely you have condemned the team to a terrible season record. I'm up for creating more opportunities to win big games after the Zips have proven that they're capable of winning one or more of their current opportunities. You can double your odds of winning the lotto if you buy two tickets instead of one. But the odds against you winning are still astronomical.

Skip, it's hard keeping up with all the stuff you're throwing out there. In the previous post I compared the lack of success by Miami in increasing their stature by playing a tough OOC schedule. This year, Miami played Ohio State, Kansas, Duke, Xavier, Cincinnati and Dayton along with some other decent OOC matchups. They even beat Xavier. What did it get them compared with the Zips? Miami finished the season with an overall record of 16-17 and an RPI of 107. The Zips finished the season with an overall record of 23-13 and an RPI of 101.

Skip, I think I've detected a disconnect in your logic. You seem to have it in firmly embedded in your mind that scheduling 10-15 games against national powers and winning the occasional one or two is going to somehow increase the Zips' standing in the world of college basketball above what it is now. Fuhgeddaboudit! Ain'tagonnahoppen! That strategy is not going to do the Zips any more good than it has helped Miami's standing in the world of college basketball. Miami has proven that it doesn't work. They schedule the toughest OOC schedule in the MAC, occasionally win one of those tough games, and have no higher standing in the world of college basketball than the Zips. If we learn from Miami's mistakes, it's not necessary for the Zips to repeat them. Winning a tough game or two is only a preliminary step. Next you have to prove that you can regularly beat highly ranked teams. Only then do you begin to get respect in the world of college basketball. The Zips currently have roughly the right number of tough games on their schedule to prove whether or not they can take the preliminary step of winning one or two of those games. I wouldn't argue against maybe having one or two more tough games on the schedule. But there comes a point when too many tough games does nothing but trade wins against weaker teams for losses against stronger teams. I'd argue that Miami is at that point right now, and it's not a good point for the Zips to aspire to. Please let me know if I'm missing something in your logic.