Dave in Green

So you have no more serious points to make?

Looking at the Wikipedia page on Dayton basketball, Dayton is not a perennial national power. They're just a step up from UA, playing in a better conference with a bigger budget and more fan support that helps attract higher level players. In the early years basketball at UD was secondary to football. In 1947 UD made the decision to prioritize basketball. Since then they've had ups and downs, but they've generally played a step above UA. No single factor is responsible for this. But having a strong commitment from those who run the school that basketball is the premier sport at UD is certainly one of many factors.

@LZip, you know I have no problem researching data to prove or disprove a point. In the case of measuring how quickly or how well some college basketball coaches develop players compared with other coaches, I've already said that's far beyond my capabilities to determine. In fact, I believe it's beyond anyone's capabilities. There are too many fine details and too many variables to produce an accurate scientific study. How would you even begin to accurately measure the progress of player A under coach X at a school with major resources against player B under coach Y at a school with modest resources? If it were possible to produce such a study, there should be evidence of one out there somewhere. No such study can be found. All you can find are anecdotal stories about some coaches being good at developing players. They're mostly big name coaches at major programs who tend to get the most talented and most motivated players to begin with. I see no way that anyone can definitively "prove" that Coach Dambrot is either good or mediocre at developing players. It's a classic sports forum debate with no answers and no end.

It seems the point of the statement passed you by. The Board of Trustees doesn't select a university president on the basis of what a few writers are going to say, whether they write for Deadspin or the New York Times. The Board of Trustees selects a university president on the basis of who they believe is the most likely leader to advance the overall interests of UA. Deadspin and the New York Times are no more a part of the selection process than GP1 or Dave in Green. Look, we all know your personal feelings about Jim Tressel. Your posts on that subject are nearly as numerous as your advocacy for spring football or disdain for the NCAA. As we get closer to the possibility of Jim Tressel being selected to lead UA, it's no surprise that you're digging deep to throw up anything you can to push your opinion. Your professor friend is a drop in the ocean. Threatening that there will be some negative media coverage is fear-mongering. The only thing that really matters is whether or not Jim Tressel has proven in his time at UA that he has what it takes to be the right leader for the university. The Board of Trustees will have all the relevant data on his performance to make that decision.

@LZip, didn't mean to make fun of you. A lot of people aren't familiar with all the fine details about the relationship between LeBron and Coach Dambrot. They first met when LeBron was in the 4th or 5th grade and LeBron was just starting to get interested in basketball after previously playing Pee Wee football. LeBron and his friends started playing basketball at the Jewish Community Center where Keith Dambrot happened to be a volunteer. Coach Dambrot took an interest in LeBron and began teaching him fundamentals. Coach Dambrot was later named head coach of St. V HS, and LeBron ended up electing to play there under his old rec-league coach. They have a close relationship that stretches from the time LeBron first started playing basketball as a little kid to his HS days and beyond. I may not have every detail exactly correct, but that's a pretty fair approximation. I invite you to do your own research. Their unique relationship was briefly cited by Brian Windhorst in this ESPN story: Those who want to make the case that Coach Dambrot is not that great of a coach or not that great at developing players or whatever try to downplay all of this. That's fine. But anyone who's tempted to buy into that line should really do their own research. I never ask anyone to trust anything I say. I always suggest that everyone do their own research and not just listen to the smoothest talker. The truth is out there for those who are willing to invest the time to find it on their own.

Right, the players who've developed well under Coach Dambrot are all naturals and the ones who haven't are all his fault.

No surprise that a professor would think that way. We already knew that most professors favor the traditional route. As for the list of candidates, it was generated the same way as the last list of candidates in 1998 when Dr. Proenza was selected. As much as we may appreciate living in the Akron area, it's not generally considered around the rest of the country as a garden spot. The most highly qualified candidates would likely favor higher-rated universities in more desirable parts of the country. So it's no surprise that the list of applicants doesn't include high-profile names with long lists of major accomplishments. I'm confident that the Board of Trustees will give the opinions of Deadspin and other parties of similar importance the consideration they deserve in the formal process of selecting the person the Trustees believe is the most likely leader to advance the overall interests of UA.

Here's my quick mini-analysis of the IPFW-VMI game. Since it wasn't televised, this is based on watching the game develop on the box score and play-by-play: As against the Zips, IPFW first tried to establish the inside game. All their early shots were layups or short jumpers, and they hit 8 of their first 10. Unlike the Zips, however, VMI was knocking down 3s, hitting 4 of their first 5. So IPFW was behind even after hitting 8 of their first 10 2-pointers. The Dons took their first 3-point shot at 12:17 of the first half. They made only 1-8 treys in the first half, which left them trailing at halftime, 51-42. The same pattern continued in the second half with IPFW continuing to hit their 2s and miss their 3s (4-21 for the game) while VMI was hitting both 2s and 3s. It was a typical IPFW game in the sense that they like to get into high-scoring shooting matches with minimal D. The one thing I can't tell from not having seen the game is what kind of defense VMI played. So I can't say whether the Dons' poor 3-point shooting was a result of VMI playing better D than the Zips or if the Dons' 3-point shooters were just missing open looks.

@GP1, I appreciate you making the effort to introduce a numerical system to express your theory. I've never seen that system applied to player development before, so I assume that your average numbers for really good coaches vs. Coach Dambrot are part of your theory as opposed to an actual analysis. While I respect the fact that this is what you think you've been seeing, there are so many complex details and variables involved in doing a comprehensive analysis of the relative speed of player development from coach to coach that I don't think anyone has ever seriously tried to take on that project. It's still interesting to speculate about even if it can't be proven or disproven with any degree of confidence. As with any speculation, some will have a tendency to think there could be something to it while others will be more skeptical.

Rebound margin 4 minutes into the second half is 35-15. Hard to imagine the Lady Zips overcoming that kind of dominance on the boards.

Lady Zips getting destroyed on the boards, 17-7, and losing 33-20 midway through the 1st half.

Mastodons having a little trouble on the road with their 3s not falling in the first half.

@GP1, I like your thoughts on acting boldly. That's something that should be part of any good action plan. However, I still haven't seen any evidence to prove your oft-stated theory that Coach Dambrot changes the lineup too much for the players he has to work with and doesn't do a good job of developing these players. An obvious example is Deji, who many on this forum thought would never develop into an effective player. Coach Dambrot kept giving Deji opportunities to perform by putting him in and taking him out of the rotation. Near the end of the season Deji went back into the starting lineup and was one of the team's most effective players. Giving up on Deji early and sitting him at the end of the bench would have hurt the team at the end of the season. The players are real people with real differences. Coach Dambrot and his staff do a good job of understanding this and developing them at whatever speed each individual is capable of developing and willing to be developed.

My comment in The Big Dance thread where this game is being discussed is that Shaka got Shakaed.

Jim Tressel's application is an interesting read. He suggests himself as interim president for a 2-year period prior to a permanent new president taking over. He backs it up with many good reasons for such a move. It's not clear if he considers himself a candidate to be the new permanent president after serving 2 years as interim president.

You NEVER know for sure if anyone is going to succeed to the highest expectations. With Jim Tressel, there's been an opportunity over the past 2 years for UA decision-makers to observe him up close in a position of high responsibility. We sit back and speculate on how well he's done. Those who are close to the situation and monitor his performance on a daily basis know better than anyone how well he's performed in the responsibilities he's been given. The only question I ever see on this forum about how well he's performed is how much money he's raised for a new basketball arena. Think Bigger.

I hate that Shaka got Shakaed. But that game was the definition of what makes March Madness great. Clutch play after clutch play. If the Zips ever played an NCAA tournament game like that, the ZN.o server would crash.

This thread is confusing me a little because it's in the basketball forum but it's addressing more than just basketball. With March Madness at fever pitch, it's hard to think of anything beyond basketball right now. The Stephen F. Austin OT win over VCU was absolutely insane. But a Thinking Bigger general sports discussion is a good thing to have in the right place at the right time.

Smallest team in the tourney with the heart of a giant. They have 3 forwards and 6 guards in their rotation. How can anyone not love these guys. Stephen slays VCU in OT.

Stephen is for real. Tied the game with 3 seconds left to send it into OT. Heck of a game.

And of course as soon as I post that VCU goes on a big run and, knowing VCU, probably put the game away. But the Lumbjacks did lead by 6 at halftime and made VCU work hard for most of the game.

Don't know if anyone has paid much attention to VCU's opponent tonight, Stephen F. Austin. We talked about them a little last season when there was a chance they might be our final Bracket Buster game before we ended up with NDSU. The Lumberjacks are giving VCU a heck of a battle tonight, so I took a look at their season record. They played a pretty weak schedule and lost to Texas and East Tennessee. But they won the rest of their games for a 31-2 record, ending the season on a 28-game winning streak. That's impressive even with a weak schedule. With 12 minutes left they were trailing VCU by a single point.

Honorable mention creativity award for an Ohio-related headline I saw online somewhere but can't find now came after Harvard upset Cinci: Cincinnati Gets Ivy League Education

Sorry I took so long to check this. Coach Dambrot is NOT the 48th highest paid college basketball coach. If you scroll down to the bottom you'll see that the author was only able to get salary information on 62 of the 351 D-I college coaches. Coach Dambrot was #48 out of 62. The first clue was up at the top where there is no sign of John Calipari. The closer you look the more big name coaches you see are missing. So while we can't be sure exactly where Coach Dambrot stands in the list of 351, it's safe to assume he's behind all of the BCS conference basketball coaches plus the new Big East and other higher profile conferences than the MAC.

@Balsy, I think you misunderstood. There was a question about any research university having a president without a PhD. I merely copied a description from Purdue's website that showed they are a respected research university and added the name and background of their non-PhD president. I'll go back and put that part in quotes for clarity. No editorial comment was intended. There are other examples out there but Purdue was the first to come to my mind. @Ada Zip, there's no question that non-doctorate university presidents represent a small minority. But that doesn't mean they're not qualified. It's just a gradual change that's slowly worked its way into higher education over the decades. Every time we have this discussion I go out on the internet and find different stories about non-doctorate college presidents. I found a new one again this time, so enjoy reading this one.