Dave in Green

As mentioned in another thread on this subject, it really doesn't matter what scenario fans wish for. Whatever happens on the court is beyond our influence. All we're doing here is speculating on what the situation would be like if certain sequences of events happen. Personally, I find it interesting to consider all the possibilities. Anything is possible, and knowing the MAC, there will be more surprises in the final two games of the regular season that may end up creating a scenario we haven't even discussed here. At this point I'm just thankful that the Zips are in a reasonable position to secure a bye, and in a possible position to earn the #1 seed. After the next-to-last round of MAC East games, we'll have a better idea of the possibilities.

It's really good for us if the Zips beat OU and Can't, and either OU or Buffalo beats Miami. It's not so good for us if OU beats the Zips, ties the Zips for 3rd in the MAC East and owns the tie-breaker going into the final game of the season. The issue has been and continues to be whether we want the Zips to have a big lead over OU, Buffalo and BGSU because Can't and Miami beat up on them, or whether we want OU, Buffalo and BGSU to beat Can't and Miami so that the Zips have a chance to overtake them in the standings for a chance to earn the #1 seed. The risk of that is that if the Zips don't have a big lead over OU, Buffalo and BGSU and the Zips stumble, they risk losing a bye by not securing one of the top 4 seeds. IF Can't had beaten OU, the Zips would have had a 2-game lead over OU, Buffalo and BGSU with 2 games to play. Now the Zips have only a 1 game lead over OU, and have to play OU at their joint. It's a must win now.

Ditto from the last 6 wins. As a team, the Zips continue to play with smarts and intensity. Buffalo had me fidgeting a little, and the refs didn't help. But the result was the same as the last 6 games, and that's what matters most. Buffalo would be a tough matchup for the Zips at the Q if they happen to meet along the way. The Bulls have a great chance of beating Miami in Buffalo. And after what OU did to Can't at Can't tonight, they could also give Miami a tough game at Miami. There are no easy games left for the Zips, either. Two tough ones on the road. OU is lurking a game behind the Zips, and they're going to be fired up to pull even with the Zips in the standings. If the Zips beat OU and Miami loses to either Buffalo or OU, how sweet would it be to have the Zips playing for the MAC East championship against Can't in the final game of the regular season? EDIT: Forgot to mention, that was a great big noisy crowd at the JAR tonight. Why do we have to wait for the last home game of the season to fill the joint?

What two teams scare you to play at the Q? What would the worst case scenario be for you (and others)? Really, none of the other teams in the MAC "scares" me because I believe the way the Zips are playing now that they are capable of beating any other team in the MAC. On the other hand, if the Zips are a little off in any of their games, there are more than two teams that could beat them. The likeliest scenario is that Can't will come in with the #1 seed and WMU or BSU the #2. If I had my choice, I'd rather see the Zips at the #3 seed and most likely be playing WMU or BSU in the semi and most likely Can't in the final. But obviously all scripts are out the window for the MAC tournament. Upsets could abound, and there's no way to "plan" who you're going to be playing. So, other than the obvious advantage of getting a bye, I'm not all that concerned whether the Zips are #1, #3 or #4 seed for the tournament. Now, the #1 seed carries a backup of an NIT bid, so that's not a bad thing to have in the back pocket if the Zips should get upset in the tournament. But there are really long odds against the Zips getting that right now. So I'll stick with the #3 seed as my most likely goal for the Zips.

No help from BUGS today, as they lose to the Sweaters, 84-77. Best case scenario now to move up to the #3 seed is for the Zips to beat Buffalo tonight, and then for Buffalo to beat the Sweaters when they play in Buffalo. I think the odds are better of that than of OU beating the Sweaters at Miami. Those are the last 2 chances for a Miami loss that would allow the Zips to catch them in the MAC East if the Zips win their last 3 games. Or, if you're thinking defensively for the Zips holding onto the #4 seed rather than offensively for the Zips to move up to the #3 seed, it would be best for Miami to beat both Buffalo and OU, which would give the Zips a 2-game cushion over both of those teams as well as BUGS. That would help if the Zips should lose one of their final 3 games. Current MAC East standings after today's Miami-BGSU game: 1. Can't -- 10-3 2. Miami -- 10-4 3. Zips -- 8-5 4. Buffalo -- 7-6 4. Ohio -- 7-6 6. BGSU -- 7-7

Latest developments in this case are that a key executive in Alabama's Colonial Bank fraud case that led to the bank's failure has pled guilty and agreed to testify against others, and an even higher-ranking executive has announced intention to plead guilty. On Thursday, the former treasurer at Taylor Bean, Desiree Brown, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank, wire and securities fraud and faces up to 30 years in prison and a $250,000 fine when she is sentenced in June in the Eastern District of Virginia. Court records show that Catherine L. Kissick, the senior vice president and director of Colonial's Institutional Services Division and Mortgage Warehouse Lending Division, is scheduled to enter a plea Wednesday before U.S. District Leonie M. Brinkema. Kissick is believed to be a co-conspirator in a $1.9 billion fraud scheme involving high-level officials at both institutions. Speculation is that their testimony will result in Bobby Lowder being indicted as the big fish in this bank fraud case. Lowder, known for his micromanagement style while controlling Colonial Bank as CEO for 25 years, is also known for his similar style in managing Auburn University's athletic programs as a member of Auburn's board of directors for nearly three decades. He is currently sitting chairman of Auburn's finance committee, and is suspected by many of being the key person behind any Auburn football indiscretions that may come out as a result of wiretaps related to the bank failure and Alabama gambling bribery cases. Short summary is that the fed's investigation is gathering speed, and if there turns out to be a connection to college football, the whole house of cards will be getting shaky. Latest speculation on that front is that the SEC may take a heavy hit in this, with the scandal extending beyond Auburn. Too much speculation on too many fronts to cite all the possibilities here. But some are saying if pay-for-play is found to run deep in the SEC and college football in general that the U.S. Congress may get involved, and it could shake the NCAA to its core. So the title of this thread remains accurate: Potential College Football Scandal. Court Plea Story

Z.I.P. may have intended it to be sarcastic, but it's still a good point for discussion.

The best player on a balanced team usually has less impressive stats than the best player on a team that relies heavily on that one player. If the All MAC team is based purely on gaudy stats, then the Serb might not make it. But if the voting is more thoughtful than just looking at stats, the Serb is 2nd team minimum and getting closer and closer to 1st team.

Z.I.P., you make an excellent point. Should we wish the Zips to be a sacrificial lamb in the NCAA tournament before they've proven they can even go a round or two deep in the NIT or CBI? I suppose the other side of the coin is, what would be the value of going deep in the NIT or CBI compared to the possibility of an upset of a team like Georgetown in the NCAA tournament? If the Bobkitties could do that last year with a team that didn't look all that great in the MAC, why couldn't the Zips? I personally witnessed the Zips go toe-to-toe with Gonzaga in Portland in the NCAA tournament, and for 30 minutes the Zips gave the Zags all they could handle. The naysayers might say that the Zips collapsed in the last 10 minutes of that game. That's a valid point. But it's also valid to point out that the Zips outplayed the Zags for more than half of the game. They very well could have stretched that another 10 minutes, and become the darlings of the NCAA tournament that year as OU was last year. It's all a roll of the dice in trying to determine what's "best" for this Zips team. My personal opinion is that I'm with them all the way, NCAA, NIT, CBI or bust. Just go out and play your best game wherever you end up, and I promise I'll walk away with no voice left.

A CBI game would give KD a chance to play Egner and Euton for 3 minutes.

On the subject of lesser post-season tournaments, I tend to look at them the same way I would winning a consolation prize in the big lotto. I'd be seriously disappointed if I just missed the $50,000,000 jackpot, but would find a way to grin and bear it with accepting the $50,000 consolation prize.

CK, sitting a few rows in front of me and Hilltopper, your ears are surely thankful that there's not as much need to remind the refs of questionable calls when your team is comfortably winning. Questionable calls by the refs are only small bumps in the road when you're winning, whereas they can make all the difference in a close loss. My vocal chords will only stand so much abuse before giving out, and I believe it's wise to conserve limited resources for times of greatest need.

Remember Pearl Harbor. Don't forget it, but don't dwell on it.

Playing what if ..... If Can't had beaten Miami the other night instead of vice versa, the MAC East standings would look like this right now: 1. Can't -- 11-2 2. Zips -- 8-5 2. Miami -- 8-5 4. Buffalo -- 7-6 4. BGSU -- 7-6 4. Ohio -- 7-6 Instead of this: 1. Can't -- 10-3 2. Miami -- 9-4 3. Zips -- 8-5 4. Buffalo -- 7-6 4. BGSU -- 7-6 4. Ohio -- 7-6 There's still a chance for the Zips to grab the #3 seed, but hopes for #1 are fading. Even if Miami doesn't stumble, based on the way things looked a couple of weeks ago, the #4 seed doesn't look so bad for the Zips right now. At least the Zips control their own destiny. Win out, and they get a bye no matter what anyone else does.

I'm sure Coles said the Serb's personality is off the charts, and it got mistranscribed off the audio tape.

OU beats BUGS, 70-60, and the Zips are now a game ahead of both of them.

The Zips made it look a lot easier than I expected! I could just say "ditto" from my last few game summaries. The Zips are just playing rock solid consistent team basketball right now, game after game. They don't have long scoring droughts. I think they were about 1 of 10 from the field to start the game, and then shot better than 50% the rest of the way. They played tough defense, they passed well, they rebounded well, they did it all. It goes without saying that if the Zips keep playing like this, it's going to be extremely difficult for any team left on the schedule to beat them. Obviously, the odds could catch up with them and they could lose any of the 3 games left on the regular season schedule. But after what I saw tonight and in the last few games, it wouldn't surprise me if they ran the table. I almost hesitate to point out individual players, because they are all playing solid roles and I don't want to shortchange anyone. But there's no way to ignore the fact that the Serb is the most solid rock of the bunch. He is truly in a zone right now. Nik is the man.

I like your thinking on this. The only thing I would add is that "relative ease" for a Zips-Sweaters game means it will still be a relatively close game with nail-biting moments. Zips and Sweaters are both playing good all-around basketball right now. I'm expecting a highly competitive game where both teams are well-prepared and intense.

I finished my professional working career without ever belonging to a union. But I've seen enough over the years to develop an appreciation for the rightful place of unions as an appropriate check and balance against big business and the wealthy controlling everything. The principle of checks and balances is a critical element of the U.S. government that the founding fathers put into place to keep one element of government from attaining undue power. The same principle is applicable to business. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When big business has excessive power, corruption is more likely to occur. The same applies when unions have excessive power. A balance of business and labor tends to keep everyone more honest and less corrupt. Make no mistake about it. This is not just about government unions. The far right has targeted all unions because the far right represents big business and big business wants to eliminate all checks and balances. Non-government unions are already weaker than they've been in decades. Busting government unions would put non-government unions on death watch. With unions gutted, there would be no checks and balances against big business. Anyone who sees the wisdom in the principle of checks and balances will not want to see either business or labor be made totally subservient to the other. America and its citizens are best served by strong, healthy businesses and unions, and a neutral and impartial government that favors both equally and allows neither to develop excessive power over the other.

Looks like another one to add. In a story on last night's Jackson HS game against Walsh Jesuit, the Canton Repository reports that Walsh Jesuit star Evan Payne (a junior) has been offered by UA as well as Southern Cal, TCU, Can't and Central Michigan. Payne is an extremely athletic 6-1 guard who plays above the rim. From the YouTube video, it appears that he has really nice looking form on his 3-pointer, as well as a really nasty slam in the paint. He can play both guard positions, but at his height most likely needs to focus on the point. If he chooses UA, perhaps Rico's heir apparent? Canton Repository Story BJ Story Year Old SportsInk Story

Nothing unbelievable about it at all. The far right has been openly talking about doing this for a long time. It was inevitable this would happen when the far right got swept into office. Either those who went to the polls to vote really wanted this to happen, or they weren't paying close attention to what was likely to happen when they voted for these folks.

Preseason MAC poll picked the Zips to be 3rd in the East. They're currently tied for 3rd in the East. So far they've neither overachieved nor underachieved. The preseason poll also picked B. McKnight to be on the East All-MAC first team. Maybe if McKnight had been playing with the team all season they would have picked up another 2 or 3 wins, be leading the MAC East and be overachieving. Who knows?

Average home attendance for Zips men's basketball is actually slightly up this season over last, 2,871 to 2,824. This is further discussed in the second half of the Follow the Blue Jays Here thread.

Approximation is not the same as quantification. But I think everyone can go along with the spproximation that winning tends to increase the size of home crowds at sports events while losing has the opposite effect, and the same holds true for good/bad marketing but to a lesser degree than winning. Quanitification would require more specific relative percentages to be cited, and I don't know how to extract those numbers from the available data. The reason it takes more than a season or two to determine a longterm trend in sports attendance is because there are other variables beyond winning/losing and good/bad marketing. The state of the local economy, for example, plays a major role in the number of people willing to buy tickets to various entertainment activities. You'd have to factor in the economy and other variables over a longer period of time to determine a longterm trend. In any case, the thing I found most interesting about the 7-season home attendance stats was how consistent the Zips' home attendance has been compared with CSU's, which has bounced up and down quite a bit. From the 2004-05 through 2007-08 seasons, Zips home attendance never varied more than 0.5%. That's remarkably stable for a 4-year run, given all the different variables that could have affected attendance. In the 2008-09 season, Zips home attendance showed a 14% reduction from the previous season. While significant, it's only about half of the season-to-season variation that CSU has experienced a couple of times over the same time frame. Zips home attendance in the 2009-10 and current seasons has not varied more than 0.5% since that 14% reduction in 2008-09. So the Zips' average variation in season-to-season home attendance over the past 7 seasons has been less than 3%, which is a relatively stable number to hold over 7 seasons. Exactly how to relate winning, marketing, the economy and other variables to the relative stability of Zips home attendance over the past 7 seasons is beyond me.

CSU has had a big jump in home attendance between last season and this season, coinciding with a big improvement in team performance. However, a one-season jump does not represent a longterm statistical trend. For example, CSU had a bigger loss in attendance between the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons than their increase this season. The longterm trend is that CSU's attendance is more volatile from season to season than UA's, and CSU's win-loss record has also been more volatile than UA's. That supports the statement in the informative PD column that increasing attendance at basketball games "starts with winning." I agree with that, and I also agree that creative marketing can enhance attendance. The PD column also shows how serious CSU is about marketing its basketball program. I haven't seen anything like that from UA. The question of what percentage of attendance increase comes from winning and what percentage from good marketing is not addressed, and is hard to quantify.