Dave in Green

It's definitely fairer to compare schools with similar overall resources that have both FBS football programs and D-I basketball programs. Schools that make basketball their top priority and provide significantly greater resources to their basketball teams by playing at a lower level in football have an inherent advantage. That's the point I've been trying to make since VCU was brought into the discussion.

When a broad discussion like this is opened, a lot of different people bring in a lot of different factors from major to minor. Things can get a little scattered as side conversations stray off topic. You almost have to narrow down the discussion to the single thing that most people are most concerned about and then try to focus on the most important factors that might influence change. It seems as if almost everyone is at least moderately pleased that the Zips have been the most consistent winners in the MAC during the Coach Dambrot era and at least moderately concerned that the Zips' post-season results don't match up. Some other teams, including MAC teams, that can't match the Zips' sustained conference performance are able to win post-season games where the Zips have consistently failed since their 2 NIT wins, the last coming 6 seasons ago. For many the lack of post-season results prevents them from getting full enjoyment out of all the conference success. How is it that each season some teams that play roughly the same strength schedule or even weaker and have roughly the same season records or worse can outperform the Zips in post-season tournaments? Anyone who can come up with a legitimate answer to that question will not only become a folk hero among Zips basketball fans, but could get a permanent pass from Coach Dambrot to sit behind the Zips bench at all games.

Current President: Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., career politician with a law degree and no PhD.

Yeah, I got my football and basketball divisions mixed up. It's FCS and FBS. Found the following quote from this story: So if UA has typical FBS program costs, it could save $2.3 million per year if it went to a typical FCS program like Butler. That $2.3 million could pump the basketball program up to Butler/Gonzaga/VCU level funding. Mind you, I'm not advocating this. I'm merely pointing it out as part of the Butler/Gonzaga/VCU basketball program discussion.

The attitude that college presidents should all come from the ranks of educator lifers with doctorates seems to be common among professors. That attitude also exists in business. I spent part of my working career in the automotive industry, where the old-school guys adamantly believed that all top executives should come from the ranks of automotive lifers. When an executive from outside the automotive world was brought in to fill a high position, talk around the water cooler was that all the lower executives were going to revolt and show the outsider he didn't belong. I don't recall anyone actually leaving, and when the outsider started making improvements and proved himself worthy, everyone stopped talking about it after a few months.

@GP1, just trying to clarify based on your apparent enthusiasm for D-II football: Are you advocating that UA join Butler in D-II? My understanding is that the difference in D-I and D-II football budgets is significant. Would you be in favor of moving the Zips to D-II football and investing the difference in Zips basketball?

@GP1, I actually give you credit for creating such an imaginative and colorful theory about Coach Dambrot, and your doggedness in sticking to it. Very entertaining.

VCU, Butler, Gonzaga and UA are all schools with limited resources. Three of them elected to make basketball their primary focus in athletics and one made football primary and basketball secondary.

So do Butler and Gonzaga. How are their football programs doing?

I would agree that a team with a one-year run has a better opportunity to build that into a program with sustained success than a program that has had neither a one-year run nor sustained success. But I think it's more likely that sustained success will eventually result in a great year's run than vice versa. If anyone has a few spare hours you can always go back over the last 5-10 years and look at the teams who came out of nowhere to win an NCAA tournament game or two and see how they've fared in the following years.

@Dr Z, as a matter of fact, I've rooted for several professional franchises that have won it all over the last 40 years. i also have one more thought on your trade perspective: I'd be willing to trade 10 seasons of mediocrity for one season of glory as long as you were the one sitting through 10 seasons of mediocre performance and not me.

Doesn't really matter as it's a red herring argument to debate trading things you have no control over trading. If you look at 351 D-I basketball programs, of course any one of them in a given year could have a run. But the odds against any one school doing that are much steeper. I don't care about the other 350 programs. I care about Zips basketball. I think the Zips' best odds of having a great season are to have a lot of consistently good seasons. Last season was the best shot so far. Zeke was much better in all aspects of his game. The team was so strong that it won 19 games in a row despite the loss of the team's star wing (Q) for the season. The loss of the team's only quality PG at the end of the season was the death knell, and the sick and injured players in the tournament was the final kick in the gut. Last season's team with Q starting at the wing and Alex not being distracted by outside business interests would have been poised to produce the MAC's first undefeated conference champion and an NCAA tournament win or two. The Zips' current resources and coaching staff got us that close. We didn't have to trade 10 seasons of mediocrity to get that close even if it were possible to trade 10 seasons of mediocrity for one brief burst of glory. Nope, give me a consistent, sustainable program that's already proven it can get us close, year after year. When 21 wins is a bad season, great seasons are always within reach.

Would you trade 10 years of mediocrity in football for one big bowl game?

We know that small schools with limited resources occasionally stumble on the winning formula and outperform bigger schools with more resources. The question is whether or not it's sustainable. Florida Gulf Coast did it last season and fell off this season. Where will they be next season and the season after? IPFW has had one good season. What will their record be over the next decade? There are short-term fixes that might get you a bump up for a season or two only to land you back in mediocrity. Whatever approach UA takes, I want it to be sustainable.

It's great to have a separate thread for this discussion. But there were some good thoughts already posted in the IPFW thread that should be moved here so we don't have to re-state them.

In these regular discussions, we tend to take sides and throw back the pros and cons at each other as if the other side doesn't get it. In fact I think we all get it. There are two simple questions that prove that: 1) Is there anyone who's unhappy with or doesn't appreciate the improvement in overall performance of Zips basketball under Coach Dambrot compared with that of the prior decade? 2) Is there anyone who's totally satisfied with the current level in overall performance that Zips basketball has achieved and believes Zips basketball has peaked and we should just be happy with what we've got and not wish for more? I think the answer to both of those questions is a unanimous no. That puts us all in agreement on a fundamental starting point for a discussion on what we think might be done to raise the level of Zips basketball even higher than the above average level it's already reached. I know that I'm open to considering anyone's suggestions. Anyone who offers a suggestion or opinion should expect to be questioned about how realistic it is and what it would take to implement. But those questions shouldn't be in the form of an attack, and we shouldn't be too sensitive to thinking we're being attacked. Remember, we're all Zips fans. We're all on the same side with the same basic goal of wanting to see Zips basketball get even better than it already is. Let's work together on this.

Following through on that, #12 seed NDSU did upset #5 seed Oklahoma. That's the same NDSU that IPFW beat earlier this season and lost to by just 3 points in the Summit League championship game. Anyone who thought that IPFW was a pushover team that the Zips should have blown out was not doing an objective analysis. More objective oddsmakers made the Zips 2.5-point underdogs in this game for a good reason.

Nice work by the #16 seeded Albany Great Danes (19-15) to play even with #1 Florida for most of the game, holding a 39-39 tie with 14 minutes left in the game before losing by 12.

Harvard upsets Cincinnati 61-57.

Practice Preachers -- love that label! Everyone bow your heads and start praying for next season's team. Hard to top Charles Thomas' sermon. Everyone should have high expectations for BJ. He was the most highly recruited player of the 4 freshmen, with interest and offers from the likes of Tennessee, Wake Forest, VCU and Xavier. But high expectations shouldn't be confused with unrealistic expectations. He's not likely to be a starter from game one, lead the Zips in statistical categories or contend for MAC POY in his freshman season. He'll make freshman mistakes, especially early in the season. It's not unrealistic, however, to expect him to be a strong contender for the MAC All-Freshman Team. BJ was described by one recruiting service as an undersized power forward for D-I college level. He played the 3 in HS and drove to the rim like a wing but crashed the boards like a 4. This season the Zips outrebounded their opponents by only 1.4 per game compared with 5.5 last season -- big difference. The Zips need more rebounding from all positions, and BJ could help make a difference regardless of what position he plays. On the roster BJ's now listed at 6-6, 215 pounds. He guards Tree in practice but can play the 1, 2 or 3, which makes him a candidate to assume part-time PG duties previously held by Q. There are lower expectations for Aaron because he was not as highly recruited. The hope is that he's one of those diamonds in the rough with a chip on his shoulder to prove that he belongs. You can't always accurately measure how a player will perform under game conditions by how they look in practice. But you can clearly see attitude, determination, intensity and motor in practice. Aaron has all those. We'll see if these two redshirt freshmen live up to realistic expectations.

Trivia fact: Big Dog's dad sat next to us last night, and we learned that Isaiah's nickname has been Big Dog since he was in the 4th grade.

Facts are always a good starting point for intelligent discussions. The numbers show that Coach Dambrot has done a good job of turning the Zips into a consistent regular season winner and post-season qualifier. That's one step forward for the program. The next step is to consistently win post-season games. Everyone's waiting for that with growing impatience as the tournament losses pile up. This steers the conversation into the often-discussed subject of what it takes to make that next step. Is UA truly committed to providing the resources necessary to take that next step? Can UA become a destination for more talented players who are being recruited by other programs with more resources and a deeper basketball tradition? Are Coach Dambrot and his assistants capable of getting the most out of the level of talent they're able to recruit? All of this has been discussed at length on this forum, and many have locked on to their favorite target(s). I don't think it's any one thing but a combination of all the above and more to varying degrees. Coach Dambrot has tried to push UA into committing more resources because he truly wants basketball to become more relevant at his alma mater. UA has limited resources and has recently invested a lot in the more costly football program. But Coach Dambrot also has to look at himself in the mirror and ask the hard question if there aren't things within his own control he could change to produce even better results. For example, we've seen uncharacteristic character issues in recent years that we didn't see before. That may require a tougher approach on player discipline. That might cause some talented players to be less likely to come to UA while it might make the program more attractive to others. I would hope that Coach Dambrot would spend part of the off-season self-analyzing his program more critically than ever and looking to others who've had success in similar situations for advice. Maybe there are some things that Coach Kest has done to advance the women's program that could work with the men's team. As Zips basketball fans, I think it's our duty to point out what we think is wrong and offer our best advice. Even though we can't know all the circumstances behind every issue, you never know when something someone says here might spark an idea that could contribute to the program. Keeping the discussion thoughtful and constructive would be the most likely way for us to help get the results from the program that we all so badly want.

Lots of time to think about this game on the long drive home, which is never fun after a painful loss. As I mentioned earlier, this game was eerily similar to the game at Buffalo. In both games the Zips were suckered into an AAU-type offensive shootout in which they had to feel good about knocking down so many easy buckets. Problem is their opponent was doing the same, and their opponent was better at it. In both games the Zips were just 1 point behind with 6 minutes left, and in both games they couldn't keep up when it mattered. The final scores were almost identical -- 91-97 and 90-96. Those were the only 2 games this season in which either the Zips or their opponent scored in the 90s. The lesson of the Buffalo game wasn't well learned. The Zips can shoot a high percentage from the field, score a whole bunch of points and have a lot of fun running up the score on the offensive end. But their biggest strength throughout the season was shutting down other teams with their defense when the game was on the line, not winning shootouts. Their offense didn't lose this game and the refs didn't decide the outcome. The Zips ended their season with lack of D. It's a lesson they can stew on all through the off-season. They return next season without their most dynamic offensive player (Q), so they aren't likely to win many shootouts next season, either. They need to refocus on what has brought them the most success throughout the KD era -- defense. Scoring lots of points is fun. But winning games is all about scoring more than the other team. If you can't do it with offense you'd better find a way to do it with defense. It's not as much fun to execute and it's not that pretty to watch. But the long ride back home is a lot more fun when you've won a lower-scoring game with tough D and advanced to the next round of a tournament.

Zips defense ended the season without ever adjusting to not having Zeke to protect the rim. Offense never adjusted to PG by committee covering for loss of Alex. Too many flaws in too many areas. They have a lot of work ahead to find ways to cover each other's backs or next season will be no different.

Zips also not playing good enough to win.