Dave in Green

I'm not sure of the exact rule. But in the past I've seen occasions where a defensive player went down while the other team was on a fast break and the refs didn't stop play until after the fast break concluded. I think the refs have the option of stopping play at any time for an injured player depending on the exact circumstances and apparent seriousness of the injury, but usually don't when a team is in the middle of a potential scoring play.

With 4 of the 5 teams leading the MAC standings at 3-1, the East is starting to separate a little from the West after Saturday's round 4 of conference play. WMU edges UT in OT, EMU gets its first win and OU is the only team without a conference win. Zips 82, Chips 76 WMU 81, UT 78 EMU 54, NIU 46 UB 77, MU 68 Can't 69, OU 59 BGSU 58, BSU 46 EAST Zips 3-1 UB 3-1 Can't 3-1 BGSU 3-1 MU 1-3 OU 0-4 WEST WMU 3-1 UT 2-2 CMU 2-2 BSU 2-2 NIU 1-3 EMU 1-3 Wednesday's matchups include: 3-1 Zips @ 1-3 NIU 2-2 UT @ 3-1 Can't 3-1 UB @ 2-2 CMU 1-3 EMU @ 3-1 BGSU 3-1 WMU @ 1-3 MU 0-4 OU @ 2-2 BSU

Turns out the stat mystery is pretty easy to solve if you enter the right search terms into Google. Just go to Google search and type in the following terms: 129-137 akron 1997 basketball The first hit that pops up is statfox.com with handicapping for tonight's UA-CMU game. A quick look at CMU shows that they are 63-173 since 1997 when playing against a team with a winning record, way below the Zips record as expected. Since Can't is generally acknowledged as the MAC powerhouse over the last couple of decades, I went to the handicapping for tonight's Can't-OU game to see how the Flushes have done against winning teams since 1997. Unfortunately, since they were playing a team with a losing record (OU), the handicapping only showed how Can't has done against teams with losing records since 1997. But, since Can't has a winning record, it did show how OU has done since 1997 against teams with winning records -- 123-148. So the Zips top OU in that stat even with the Hipsher era factored in. Next time Can't plays a team with a winning record, statfox.com will show us how Can't has fared against teams with winning records since 1997. As far as I can tell statfox.com doesn't post an accessible list of what all teams have done against teams with winning records since 1997. And that's a wrap from stat central.

I know you didn't calculate it and I would never accuse you of not loving the Zips. I thought you could help us solve the mystery by letting us know where you saw that stat. I'm with you in not being willing to manually put together a stat like that! Someone somewhere with access to a database just did a computerized numbers sort to get it. By the way, the majority of total games won and lost may belong to Coach Dambrot, but the majority of losses belong to Hipsher. Anyway, the raw stat has little meaning without some perspective. What kind of record against only winning teams do other teams have over that many seasons? Is the Zips record above or below average compared with other teams? Maybe someone will stumble upon a source that calculates such arcane stats for all teams and we can gain more perspective. Until then I'd consider it a throwaway stat.

I was right. Chips didn't score 100. But they did score 52 freaking points in the second half after just 24 in the first! It was a game of halves. The Zips deserved to win because they won their half bigger with brilliant defense. Free throw shooting was obviously a disaster tonight. Hard to believe the Zips hit 86.7% of their free throws just a couple of games ago in Toledo. Just as bad was the Zips inability to handle the inbound pressure the Chips put on them near the end of the game. I thought the Zips were better at handling the press this season, but the Chips sure gave them fits. They really need to work on that as other teams are going to watch this game tape. Reggie was obviously the offensive star. Looking a little deeper into the stats, when was the last time Jake and Reggie led the team in rebounds (8 and 6 respectively)? The Zips 43-32 rebounding edge was critical to winning this game, as was the edge in blocked shots, 6-0. The Zips needed every bit of that to overcome their poor free throw shooting and late-game ball handling problems and defensive lapses. Fortunately they built just enough of a lead with their nicely executed first half to hang on for the win. CMU is a pretty good team that will challenge Toledo and WMU in the West.

Zips perimeter D is spectacular. Chips only got 7 treys off and made only 1.

No 100 tonight.

Not sure where to find it. Maybe Dr Z can help. Would be quite a task to go back game-by-game over 10 seasons and see what the records were for each team at the time the Zips played them.

Gosh, I wonder who would think to put together a stat like that? Anyway, those numbers would include the Dan Hipsher years during which he coached the Zips to a 112-137 record when playing against teams with both winning and losing records. Thankfully that memory has faded over the past decade.

Duh. That's what happens when you get in too much of a hurry. I'll go back and correct that.

If Tree had graduated academically he would have been eligible to transfer to another D-I school and play immediately without having to sit out a season. My guess is that he hadn't completed all of his required credit hours. I hope he does well in his professional career and that he returns to finish his degree at UA.

Dr Z, I really like having these game threads start off with the basics as you did on this one. Another good thing to have up front for those who might be interested is a link to the statistical comparison of the Zips vs. their opponent. I'll add a link to the statsheet.com comparison of the teams to save everyone a little time: Zips vs. Chips Stats Just looking at the numbers the Chips look downright scary. They're actually #1 in the country in points per possession (1.26) ahead of Notre Dame and Gonzaga, and #2 in both points per game (85.9) and true shooting percentage (62.9%). The giant grain of salt is the fact that their SOS is #344, down in the cellar with Liberty and Houston Baptist. In other words, they've fattened their offensive stats on some of the highest calorie cupcakes in the country. Still, the Zips can't take any team lightly that came so close to beating Toledo. CMU starts 3 juniors, 1 sophomore and 1 freshman with 1 senior, 2 juniors and 2 freshmen also averaging double-digit minutes. Sizewise overall their backcourt averages a little taller and their frontcourt a little shorter than the Zips. As others have already mentioned, tight defense and disciplined offense will be keys for the Zips. It's tempting when playing a run-and-gun team to fall into the trap of playing their game instead of your own. Shooting is fun and defense is hard work. Zips have to wear their hard hats tonight and make CMU play Zips ball.

Right, the wealthy schools are certainly not in favor of a player union because unions are a counterbalance to monolithic management power. The wealthy schools simply want to reimburse their players in a manner of their own choosing in order to lessen the perceived need for a union. A college player union could, indeed, make leveling the financial field one of its priorities.

Maybe that scope and status report above isn't so illuminating after all. A further search turns up a report from the December 2012 UA board meeting where the identical wording is used. So it appears that the wording quoted above is just a placeholder, and whatever progress is actually being made is not being called out in the board meeting reports.

You can be assured that any changes the wealthy schools are pushing will not result in a narrowing of the gap between the haves and have-nots. Any changes designed to help narrow the gap will need to come from other powers.

An official description of the scope and current status of the JAR renovation study is available as one small item in the full 356-page report generated from UA's Dec. 10 board meeting, which is publicly available through an internet search. For those who don't want to bother digging through the whole document, I'll post below everything I could find about the renovation study:

Having Ianello as the wide receivers coach at Buffalo would seem to be a competitive advantage for the Zips based on this.

Having a problem with Mike Leach doesn't necessarily sound an alarm for me.

This probably needs a little expansion for the benefit of any UA parties following this thread.

It's a mess, isn't it? All the have-nots need more money to compete with the haves, and no one wants to pay. Making poor students foot the bill through bigger and more difficult to pay back student loans is not a viable longterm solution. I'm sure there are many students at UA and other less wealthy Ohio colleges who would be just fine with their schools dropping the fees, dropping high level athletics and letting Ohio be represented in the college sporting world by tOSU with its wealthy benefactors picking up the bills in lieu of the poor students. The same situation exists in pro sports, where the smaller markets couldn't compete with big New York and Los Angeles money. That's why pro sports came up with methods to try to make the playing field more level. College athletics are just starting to try to deal with the problem, and right now everyone is confused and running around in circles. Some of the proposed solutions could have dire unintended consequences. Like the game of Monopoly, similar situations exist in just about everything where big money buys up Boardwalk and Park Place, fills them with houses and hotels and waits for some poor sucker to land there, go bankrupt and end up in jail. I sure don't seen any simple solutions. I think this conversation is going to be going on for a long time, and a lot of crazy stuff is likely to happen along the way.

The cost of competing at a high level in college athletics has become ridiculously high. College coaches are starting to command higher salaries than professional coaches, college players want to unionize and be paid beyond their free scholarships, fans are demanding only the best and won't support teams that don't play in first class facilities and consistently win at the highest level. This all costs money, lots and lots of money. If you want to play someone has to pay. If no one wants to pay the alternative is not to play.

Skip, what I'm talking about is a 3-phase deliberate process that would take time and patience, and would work with some and not others but is more likely to be successful than trying to shame new fans for not wearing Zips colors: 1. Use creative schemes to attract any additional fans to Zips games and get more butts in seats, including tOSU fans or fans of any other teams who like to display those teams' colors; 2. Don't chase them off by pissing on them for not wearing Zips colors; 3. Try to win them over in a positive way to want to attend Zips games wearing Zips colors.

Skip, I think this represents a healthy attitude. UA should try to leverage Jim Tressel's name and anything else associated with tOSU to help attract more fans. They just need to carefully think out each move for maximum positive and minimum negative impact. As disgusting as it is to see fans at Zips games dressed in tOSU gear, it's still better than if those fans stayed home instead. Let's try to get more tOSU fans to Zips games, and instead of making them feel unwelcome for not wearing Zips colors, try to win them over by expressing our appreciation that they're also supporting the Zips by attending games.

Can't scores $1.2 million, which may or may not help slow its downward drift in competitiveness on the basketball court. Court upholds ruling vs. Geno Ford

For a reality check, ESPN and USA Today have annual features on college athletics revenues and expenses. They're not perfect because they rely on information released by each school, and there's no standard accounting method. But, taken with a grain of salt, they start to give an idea of how UA compares with other schools. The ESPN numbers are presented in table form that separates total operating revenue into individually sortable columns such as money that comes from student fees, university subsidies, donations, ticket sales, etc., and total operating expenses into such subcategories as recruiting, travel, medical expenses, etc. This is quite a comprehensive set of numbers. For example, if you sort by the student fees column to see who relied most on those specific fees, UA comes in #3 at $19,109,155. Sorting by the university subsidy column shows UA way down the list at $1,660,331. For comparison, Central Michigan is near the bottom of student fees with $75,200 shown but #4 in university subsidies at $18,497,623. So even though CMU claims a tiny amount of student fees are used for athletics, the university subsidizes athletics primarily out of its general fund with comparable total money to UA. Going through the various categories will give you an idea of how pathetically low UA and other smaller schools stand in comparison to the big boys. For example, UA was near the bottom of the contributions and donations column at $1,126,953 vs. $58,907,876 for #1 Wisconsin -- roughly 2%. Under ticket sales, UA was a lowly $1,177,127 vs. $60,860,735 for #1 Texas -- again roughly 2%. Spend a little time studying the numbers in these tables and you begin to understand how the poorer schools have no choice but to use a portion of student fees if they want to compete in athletics at a level remotely close to the richer schools. The most recent USA Today study doesn't have all the revenue and expense subcategories ESPN has, but does have sortable columns for total subsidy and % subsidy. If you sort by % subsidy, UA is down at #77 with 74.30% of total athletic expenses being subsidized in one way or another ($20,769,486 total subsidies vs. $28,407,737 total expenses). The Zips are right in the middle along with other MAC schools and other MAC-level conferences. At the top a handful of high major schools have zero subsidies because their athletics generate so much cash, while at the bottom a large number of smaller schools subsidize 80-90% of their athletic expenses. I think the more we look at real numbers and real comparisons with other schools the more likely we're able to form educated opinions on how UA has been performing and what needs to be done to help fund athletics at a level that's acceptable and appropriate for all concerned. ESPN Tables USA Today Tables