Dave in Green

I have to say I'm glad that I was unable to attend this game in person. Following it on an internet scoreboard was painful enough. The one word I just can't get out of my head is "pathetic."

If Ibitayo thinks he can play some PG, I wouldn't automatically write him off. Everyone was writing him off on everything not that long ago, and all of a sudden he has made a big leap in skills to match his athleticism. He went from being on no one's radar to getting interest from a soon-to-be Big Ten team (Nebraska). If he can improve his ball handling skills to the level of a college combo guard, he could at least be a backup PG. No one really knows how much more improvement he might realize. Here's one more evaluation from the Chicago Sun Times: As the Hoops Report expected, Ibitayo's athleticism, body and, most importantly, improved play and production opened the eyes of college coaches in Milwaukee, Orlando and Merrillville while playing with the Illinois Defenders. He scored 25 points in a near-upset over Meanstreets in Merrillville. The 6-3 über-athlete often finishes in eye-opening fashion and is capable of defending three different positions. While his skill level is a work in progress, his handle is much better and he showed a willingness to compete and get after it against top-level competition. Northern Illinois, Eastern Illinois and Division II Lewis were the first to offer, with Nebraska, North Dakota and Akron showing considerable interest. Ibitayo was invited to the Indiana Elite Camp in August and several low-Division I and mid-major schools have sudden interest after a stellar July. Chicago Sun Times Link

No way! Laughed at, maybe. But who's going to take it seriously enough to hammer you?

More good points coming out about Ibitayo: * Reputation for playing good defense * Wingspan of 6-9 * Started playing basketball at the age of 2 * Honor roll student * Can play both SG and PG (imagine the matchup nightmare for opposing teams if Ibitayo could run the point at the college level!) Additional information is available on Ibitayo by searching with his full first name, Adedeji, such as the following: Prep Champs Link We've covered the PG issue across many threads as the Zips continue to get deeper in future frontcourt and wing players, and the discussion may be appropriate here as Ibitayo lists himself as being able to play both PG and SG. But maybe it's time for someone to start a generic PG thread to capture all thoughts on that issue in one place so we don't have to keep revisiting them in every non-PG thread.

"As athletic as any player in the state of Illinois" is what grabbed me. Many of us were begging for players with more hops at the risk of weaker fundamentals, so none of us can complain that KD hasn't delivered. But Quickzips brings up a good point of just how far you can shift from one to the other without increasing the risk of going too far the other way. Ideally you'd want a good balance of athletic abilities and fundamentals, and maybe this new group of players will end up having that balance. So far we're trying to figure where all these players balance out based on what others are saying and not on our own observations. You have to think that KD believes that any shortcomings in fundamentals any of these players might have can be improved with good coaching, and that he and his staff are up to the challenge. We always have to remember that the HS players who have shown both great fundamentals and great athleticism are almost all going to sign with established college basketball powers. So most players that would consider UA are going to be weaker in one or both areas. It comes down to going after the ones with the most potential to improve in their areas of weakness. Everything I read about Ibitayo tells me he's a late bloomer who came out of nowhere, and could have a huge upside if he keeps working hard and improving. This Chicago Tribune article is especially revealing about his work ethic, unselfishness and sense of loyalty: Chicago Tribune Link

Some of the most profound words I've ever read on ZN.O. Extraordinarily well said.

Jacob, I thought about that as I was writing my last post. It's a valid point worthy of consideration. One school of thought is that UA was already a fairly big soccer power before Porter's arrival, and he has taken it to the next level. So I think it's safe to assume that UA would be attractive to another top coach if Porter decided to leave. Would the position be even more attractive if UA was part of a bigger, stronger conference? Probably it would to some degree for at least some coaches. But I'm not sure if it would be a big advantage. When Notre Dame was at its peak as a football power, it did not need to be part of a conference to attract good coaches. A lot depends on how UA performs over the next few years under Porter, and whether other aspiring top coaches see UA as a longterm perennial soccer powerhouse should Porter move on. Skip, I have to feel motivated in order to go into research mode. I just don't feel motivated to go off in search of data related to being an ACC member in only the sport of soccer. I don't think this data would be easy to find, and I'm just not motivated to spend the hours required in search of numbers that may well not be available anywhere. It might be possible to find numbers related to belonging to the MAC and ACC in all sports. But everyone knows that UA is never going to become a full member of the ACC.

Doesn't the ACC pay in Confederate currency? In any case, as long as Coach Porter is at UA, the Zips should remain a consistent top 5 or 10 team almost every season. As long as they're so highly ranked, the need for an automatic conference bid is irrelevant. Unlike basketball, the Zips soccer team should have a lock on an at-large tournament bid every season. Likewise, as long as the Zips are recognized as one of the top teams in the country, they will have no problem scheduling games with other top-ranked teams. So no need to belong to a strong conference to put together a tough schedule as in football or basketball. What Boise State of the lowly WAC is to college football and Butler of the lowly Horizon League is to college basketball, UA is to college soccer, only more so. Neither Boise State nor Butler have ever been ranked #1, though like UA Butler did reach the national championship game before losing. UA soccer is currently in a rare position in college sports comparable to what Notre Dame used to hold in football. UA is currently so good with Coach Porter at the helm that the Zips could be an independent, put together a schedule against virtually any teams they want and be dominant year after year. It's really pretty amazing just how good UA soccer is right now. We Zips fans just don't have much experience at thinking in terms of leveraging the status of being on top of the heap as opposed to being in the middle or bottom of the heap trying to figure out what it takes to climb out of the hole.

Let's at least show ZN.O visitors from other schools that UA students and fans have a grasp of simple math. Nicely completed 12 passes in 35 attempts. That equals .34285714285714285714285714 etc., which rounds down to 34%. We all agree that the raw stat is not good. We disagree on how much is due to the QB and how much is due to the receivers, offensive line, coaching, etc. Everyone saw it a little differently and has different opinions, and some who didn't even see it seem to have stronger opinions than some who did see it. And isn't that what makes America so great?

Or perhaps more accurately: The defense was solid and Wagner was a beast. The only problem was that the entire offense struggled and the young QB was unable to single-handedly bail them out.

Nice detailed analysis, Captain. It was interesting as always to talk with you in the tailgate lot. I think I mentioned my concern to you before the game that the Zips needed a decent performance by the o-line to get the offense going, and we obviously saw they didn't get the job done. It wasn't all the fault of the o-line. No one on offense had a great game. But the o-line is key to protecting the QB and opening holes for the RBs, as the Zips do not have a scrambling QB or runners capable of consistently getting through the line on their own. When you don't have outstanding players who can carry the offense, the only way to score points is with good teamwork -- everyone playing together to the best of their abilities. The coaching staff has to find a way to bring out the best in all their offensive players. I owe you two beers now!

As someone who has been accused of focusing too much on statistics, I believe I am eminently qualified to address the issue of Nicely's 12 of 35 (34%) pass completion percentage. Unless you actually witnessed the game, you wouldn't know that Nicely put more than 50% of the passes that he threw to his receivers into or near their hands, i.e. catchable. About a third of his statistical pass attempts were not actual pass attempts. They were passes deliberately thrown out of bounds to avoid a sack because all of the receivers were well covered and the Syracuse defensive line was pouring through the Zips offensive line. Since intended incompletions (deliberately throwing the ball away) do not have their own statistical category, they get lumped in with unintended incompletions under pass completion percentage. Without knowing that a large percentage of the incompletions were deliberate, one cannot fairly and accurately judge the QB's actual pass accuracy performance. The fact that Nicely threw no interceptions indicates that he was smart enough not to try to force the ball into a tight Syracuse secondary when his receivers were smothered, which was most of the time. Nicely's performance was obviously not that good, but it was far from the Zips biggest problem last night. The QB did not have a lot of support, and he's not good enough to win games by himself.

The Zips band was great. I mean that sincerely. They have improved a bunch over last year, and they were better last year than the year before. I enjoyed their performance enough not to consider the trip to the game a total loss. As far as football goes, I liked the approach and attitude of the defense better than last year's. They didn't look great against Syracuse, but they were more aggressive than last year, and looked good enough to keep the Zips in contention in MAC games. Problem is, the defense can only keep the Zips in contention. It's up to the offense to put points on the board. From what I saw tonight, that's going to be a problem. The offense looked lost -- more so in the pro set. This didn't bother me at first because I thought they'd settle down after the first quarter and start executing the new system. But they never recovered from their rocky start. There were just no bright spots that I saw on offense. The offensive line was porous, none of the running backs could consistently gain yardage, none of the receivers could consistently get open, and the QB appeared to be flustered at having so many things go wrong around him. Nicely was close on many of his passes -- the ones that he didn't have to throw away due to inadequate pass protection and no open receivers. But he also tried to force it in to well-covered receivers a few times when others were more open. He was not sharp, but he was far from alone. This was a team effort. The players didn't appear to be prepared, so the coaching staff has to share the blame. I never give up on a team after one bad game. Next week the Zips have a chance to regroup and begin finding their way against a weaker team than Syracuse (which, of course, is not exactly a powerhouse). But based on what I saw tonight, it's going to take major improvements in the execution of all aspects of the offense for the Zips to do much better this season than they did last.

Always up for a challenge, I tracked YSU basketball back to the 1995-96 season, and couldn't find a single season where the Penguins wouldn't have been challenged playing against a team of real penguins. Unfortunately, this appears to be a basketball team with no history to brag about. Captain Kangaroo is correct in pointing out that there isn't much upside for the Zips in scheduling the Penguins. But since every college basketball team in the country has at least a few cupcakes on their schedule, why not go with a local cupcake instead of one from across the country? Just let the Penguins be a local cupcake substitute for a distant cupcake team and not an addition to a long string of cupcakes.

Let's just hope the players get more excited and motivated than the fans about YSU and the other teams that will come to the JAR with lower ratings than the Zips. The first step toward having a great record is to avoid being upset and beat all the teams you're supposed to beat. The second step is to start upsetting higher-ranked teams that are supposed to beat you. Fewer upsets of the Zips and more upsets by the Zips will result in higher ratings, which will in turn help reduce some of the problems mentioned in this thread, such as the difficulty of getting higer-ranked teams to come to the JAR. In addition to the advantage of Zips fans having a short drive to the YSU away games, hosting YSU may help generate a little more local media and fan interest than hosting a similarly ranked team from out of state. But I think we all agree that we don't want to see too many games against teams with national rankings at the YSU level and below. I agree with everyone who thinks this year's schedule is a baby step forward. Having MSU in place of Millikin would have represented a big step. I give the Zips schedulers credit for trying, and hope they try even harder and have more luck next season.

Skip, I think you and I are pretty much in agreement on this. There is no easy path for any MAC team to the NCAA tournament. The MAC tournament is no piece of cake. My original comments were simply to point out how much more difficult and unlikely the at-large bid path is. Like everyone else here, I want to see the Zips continue to improve and raise their odds of being considered for an at-large bid. I just think it's realistic to consider exactly what kind of record and SOS the Zips would need to actually receive such a bid based on the historical records and SOS of teams that have been stiffed by the NCAA.

Scheduling a more difficult OOC schedule and winning more of those more difficult games is easier than winning the MAC tournament? I think that one needs to be reconsidered a little more carefully. How many times over the last 20 years were the Zips realistically close to an at-large bid versus how many times were they realistically close to winning the MAC championship and automatic bid? In any case, I'm not thinking in terms of 20 years ago, or 15, or 10. I'm thinking in terms of the last 5 or so years, and the direction that KD has taken the team. The Zips have gone from a mediocre team to a genuine threat to win the MAC championship and NCAA bid every year. If that progress continues, the Zips will also increase their odds of getting an at-large bid. We all want that progress to continue. I'm not debating that a weaker schedule is better than a stronger schedule. A stronger schedule resulting in more losses might make the Zips a better team for the MAC tournament. But they'd actually have to win some of those more difficult OOC games to raise their chances of an at-large bid. All I'm saying is that the Zips are currently very close to consistently having a realistic chance to win the MAC tournament every year, and very far from having a realistic chance to get an at-large bid every year. My point is that if the Zips continue to get stronger, their odds of winning the MAC tournament or getting an at-large bid will both improve. But the odds of winning the MAC tournament have been, are, and will continue to be much better than getting an at-large bid from the NCAA.

Being realistic about an at-large bid is not the same as giving up. Realistically, the MAC is not a powerhouse basketball conference, but square in the middle of the pack of all D1 conferences. Realistically, it's immensely easier for a MAC team to win its conference tournament than to earn an at-large bid, which requires beating OOC teams that are stronger than MAC teams. Realistically, it's purely logical to have a primary focus on winning the MAC tournament and consider an at-large bid as an extreme longshot backup. Doesn't mean you give up, just that you realistically prioritize. Either goal -- consistently winning the MAC tournament or consistently having an OOC record worthy of at-large bid consideration -- requires that the Zips improve from where they've been, and we're all in favor of that. Every season the Zips should start with the attitude that they are capable of knocking off higher-rated teams, and go out and execute to the best of their abilities. Realistically, we all know that the Zips have not yet proven that they are at that level yet, and still have a ways to go to even dream of an at-large bid. But they have consistently demonstrated in recent years that they are a serious threat to reach the MAC tournament championship game with a reasonable chance to win it. Bottom line is that if the Zips continue to improve, get stronger, and rack up more wins every year, they'll have a better chance at both winning the MAC tournament and being at least remotely considered for an at-large bid. Realistically, the odds of one are orders of magnitude better than the other.

The dreaded "at-large" possibility has been invoked! We shouldn't have to discuss this in too much detail, as all the main points have been covered here pretty thoroughly in the past. We know from at-large history that the odds of any non-tournament-championship MAC team getting an at-large bid are virtually nil. I'm guessing that it would require an amazing regular season record of no more than 2-3 losses total, and more than 2 upsets of higher-ranked OOC teams to even come close to an at-large bid. It may be cruel to Zips fans to raise even the slightest hope of an at-large bid because it is so remote. Then again, we all keep hoping for the big breakthrough where the Zips put it all together. I do think the incoming crop of players combined with the more experienced Zeke and a few other veteran Zips players have the potential to make the team stronger this season. But it would take a huge improvement to make an at-large bid anything more than the dream of winning a multimillion lotto jackpot.

What exactly defines "successful" in D1A college football as it relates to UA? Some people would define "successful" for UA as averaging more wins than losses. Some would say UA has to regularly dominate the MAC to be successful. Some would say that UA has to become a regular top 25 team to be successful. Some would say that UA would occasionally have to challenge for the national championship to be successful. People have different expectations, and there's nothing the UA football program could do to please everyone. If the Zips somehow won the national championship, someone would be on this forum complaining that they won it ugly and didn't deserve it. Reality is that UA has recently made major investments to improve many aspects of the football program. We can only guess how that will work out over time. Pulling the plug immediately after making such an investment is probably the least prudent move. The best times to evaluate whether it's time to push forward or fall back is either before a major investment is made or after measurements can be made about the return on an investment already made. How much time is needed to collect and analyze meaningful data about the level of progress? Again, there will be no agreement in this thread on a firm definition. Some people want to quit right now without waiting to see any results, and at the opposite end others will want to soldier on no matter what the results. Between the two extremes is a broad range of choices ranging from reevaluating the status of Zips football in a few months to a few years. Personally, I'd like to see where UA football is after the next three seasons. I think that three years is long enough to show a results trend from recent investments. There still won't be agreement on ZN.O about how successful the investments were, because people will still disagree on the definition of "successful" as it relates to Zips football. But by then the folks at UA who actually pulled the trigger on those investments will have to face the cold, hard reality of whether or not the return is in line with their expectations.

Cribbs gets a pass from Cleveland sports fans because: 1) Fans think Cribbs delivers on a team that doesn't otherwise deliver a lot to get excited about. 2) Fans don't think Browns management appreciates what Cribbs delivers as much as they do.

In the global economy, trillions of dollars are spent every year for the exclusive purpose of "making people feel good." It's meaningful to all those who profit from it, both sellers and buyers. Of course, it can always be argued that it's better to look good than to feel good.

LeBron starts spreading his college love around to now include the Miami Hurricanes: ESPN Link

Whenever there's a discussion where different sides favor one player over the other, one byproduct is that there can be a tendency to enhance the accomplishments of the player we favor and diminish the accomplishments of the other guy. In other words, we're not always fair and balanced in our coverage. We're advocating for one or the other. That's not an inherently bad thing as long as the discussion doesn't get so heated that we really exaggerate to make a point. Then it can come off as idolizing one and trashing the other, when in fact there's not such a huge difference in the abilities of the two players being compared. I really think that most of the comments in this thread are pretty reasonable. Both QBs had times last season when they looked good and times when they looked bad, and it's fair to point those out. But in the end it's the total performance under the circumstances at the time each was playing, as well as the way both performed in practice this season, that count the most in favoring one over the other. Personally, I don't think either one has shown that they are truly great or truly awful. I just think that PN7 has slightly more ability and more upside. But I feel good about having Rodgers as a backup should something go wrong.

I've been frequenting Edgar's for the past couple of years, and it's become one of my favorite places for dinner in the Akron area. Chef Gillespie is not only outstanding in the kitchen, but he always makes a round of the tables and he has to be one of the nicest people I've met. He richly deserves the nomination, and I'll be voting for him!