Zipmeister

On the contrary, no disappointment here. Unlike the impact of moving the college basketball 3 point line back a foot and its dramatic effect on mid major programs, the difference between a 5'10" (if that's really how tall he is) cornerback and a 5'7" cornerback in covering a 6'4" receiver is negligible. State Qualifier in the High jump would indicate the height advantage of a 6'4 receiver would be negligible as well. YES. All we have to do is get their 6'4" guy to agree not to jump and we got it covered. Just hearsay. Don't shoot the messenger But.... I hear that Randy and the Tonganator been hanging out and that Randy was given some kind of secret herbal med that he's been rubbin on his hands. Not to worry... Randy's now got some MH big enough to pull down any of PN16's throws anywhere in the vicintiy. We got this corner covered. GO ZIPS My bad - I thought Randy was gonna be moved to WR. So sue me! QUOTE(ZachTheZip @ Mar 24 2010, 02:04 AM) Randy Greenwood is moving from Safety to Corner. I think it's a more natural position for him. He came is as a highly touted WR... -------------------- Half Buck Either way, let's hope Randy hasn't been hanging with the Tonganator too much. I'd like to see Randy play this year.

On the contrary, no disappointment here. Unlike the impact of moving the college basketball 3 point line back a foot and its dramatic effect on mid major programs, the difference between a 5'10" (if that's really how tall he is) cornerback and a 5'7" cornerback in covering a 6'4" receiver is negligible. State Qualifier in the High jump would indicate the height advantage of a 6'4 receiver would be negligible as well. YES. All we have to do is get their 6'4" guy to agree not to jump and we got it covered.

On the contrary, no disappointment here. Unlike the impact of moving the college basketball 3 point line back a foot and its dramatic effect on mid major programs, the difference between a 5'10" (if that's really how tall he is) cornerback and a 5'7" cornerback in covering a 6'4" receiver is negligible.

Cause this is America.

An interesting group of numbers. Some of the numbers went up some of them went down. Unfortunately, as you suggest, we can't tell if any of the differences are significant. One exception, I noticed that you said the mid-majors shooting percentage fell significantly. Did you conduct an ANOVA or some other test to prove statistical significance?

Thanks Dave in Green, for coming around to the central point in the discussion (within an argument, within a thread). It leads perfectly to my suggestion to the NCAA basketball Gods. The rules need to be massaged to both provide some defense in the game finally, while at the same time give more credit to talent, and lead to increased parity in college basketball. Since my idea to take from soccer and hockey and add a goalkeeper is unlikely to pass muster (sadly, especially now that we have a 7-foot keeper), my proposal is that a lay-up or a slam-dunk should count for only one point! How much do you expect for such an easy shot? Reward teams that take chances, not those that take the easiest shots on the floor! I think it was John Wooden who first suggested making slam dunks worth less -- if you have to allow them at all (it was in his time, in the 60s that dunking was made illegal. If you can't bring that back then make it less valuable). You have just scratched the surface. For an even more fair system I propose the following If the shooter has his back to the basket when making what would normally be a 2 or 3 point shot, that goal should count double. An exception to the doubling rule would apply to a dunk, which according to your suggestion would only count 1 normally, but if the dunker's back is to the basket this should only count a ½ point because the guy is showing off. Dunks should count as 3 if a rule change allows the team on offense to elect to have the basket raised to 13 feet. When the basket is in this position, 2 point shots should count as 3.5 points and 3 point shots should count as 4.5 points, and if a shot wedges and sticks between the rim and the backboard that should count as 1.5 points unless the defensive team dislodges the ball within 3 seconds; then it would only count as .75. Free throws will continue to count as 1 point each unless the shooter elects to go for double by facing away from the basket and the basket should be set at 2 feet for all free throws. Edit: When the basket is set at 13 feet, the doubling rule applies and the dunk penalty is waived.

From here: That leap makes my Mr. Spock meter chime Not Logical. Sorry, didn't realize you were an education major.

What's your point? The 3-point shot is a part of the game. If that is what it takes to beat a team, it's legal. Who cares if it is the only way to beat a team that can't defend it? How did moving the line back hurt Butler? How'd it hurt Northern Iowa? How'd it hurt OU? How'd it affect Medlock or Kool's game? Moving the line back did absolutely nothing to hurt mid-major schools. Normally i agree with you Captain but i would have to think that smaller teams WOULD be negatively impacted by a further 3 point line and therefore lower 3 point percentages. I guess the other school of thought is that it spreads the floor more and helps them. But i can see where Racer is coming from. I love it. If you don't have the facts to test a theory, the theory is correct. Theories dont have to be based on any facts. No, but you need facts to test theories.

What's your point? The 3-point shot is a part of the game. If that is what it takes to beat a team, it's legal. Who cares if it is the only way to beat a team that can't defend it? How did moving the line back hurt Butler? How'd it hurt Northern Iowa? How'd it hurt OU? How'd it affect Medlock or Kool's game? Moving the line back did absolutely nothing to hurt mid-major schools. Normally i agree with you Captain but i would have to think that smaller teams WOULD be negatively impacted by a further 3 point line and therefore lower 3 point percentages. I guess the other school of thought is that it spreads the floor more and helps them. But i can see where Racer is coming from. I love it. If you don't have the facts to test a theory, the theory is correct.

AHA. In the absence of facts, supposition is fact.

The result of a single game is certainly not the correct procedure to test the theory. While an interesting exercise, the outcome of one game is merely anecdotal. For the results to reach statistical significance we need a sample of at least 30 games; the bare minimum for the sample to achieve asymptotic normality. The bigger the sample the better off you will be. It is also important to correctly identify and include in your model the variables that you believe constitute both athleticism and intelligence as well as however many control variables you believe are appropriate. It goes without saying that you should check for the degree of multicollinearity in your model, employ the correct functional form, and test the error terms for heteroskedasticity.

I see what you mean.

Thank goodness he plays basketball because he is too big to play defensive back for the Zip footballers.

Lets cut the NCAA back to 8 teams and expand the NIT to 129. The teams tanked 128 and 129 will do a play-in game to see who gets to take on the top team.

I have never heard of that sport before but it sounds interesting. Do the women perform on the ice at the same time the hockey game is going on? Are there special penalties if you cross check a gymnast while she is making her approach to the horse? Do the ladies wear any special protective gear?

I'll tell you right now, my gut feeling is that we beat those punk-ass orangemen from Syracuse. That's for sure. I was feeling pretty good about our chances in this game until I read your prediction.

It's funny how people screamed for athleticism after we lost to K.e.n.t. I said we need guys that can flat-out ball. Now we lose to a very earth-bound, slow, mediocre mid-major at home, and it is proven again - we need guys that can ball. We have a bunch of role players. We have no bad-ass MFer's that can flat-out ball. We can't even defend anymore. If Euton, Egner or Green can shoot, I'd give them 30 minutes/game next year, right off the bat. If they can hold an opposing guard under 30 points, I'd give them 40 minutes per game. I wonder if Peter North has any eligibility remaining?

You really think people care about any of the pairings in this basketball showpiece? Tonight's CBI games feature Duquesne, Colorado State and Oregon State who are a combined one game under 500 for the season. Now that's quality bball.

OK, bowling doesn't seem to be getting much traction. So let's go with another coed sport that has REAL MONEY MAKING POTENTIAL - NASCAR. Considering costs, we may be able to reduce them by converting the Rubber Bowl into our home track. One drawback - if we go the NASCAR route instead of bowling, we will have to buy rather than rent our shoes.

Provide us with some details concerning how football = swimming and diving + volleyball + tennis. Is it: A. number of scholarships B. number of bodies C. size of budget D. an equation you just pulled out of your rear You can't go wrong with bowling. It's coed and you can rent the shoes. This was an estimation based on scholarships, number of student-athletes participating, and consideration for the parity in all other sports. AHA....the answer is D. Seems like you included a a lot of stuff. Hope it didn't hurt pulling it out of there.

"I can remember when we used to dominate this tournament until that damn University of Phoenix came along." (A much older) Zach the Zip, 2020.

Provide us with some details concerning how football = swimming and diving + volleyball + tennis. Is it: A. number of scholarships B. number of bodies C. size of budget D. an equation you just pulled out of your rear You can't go wrong with bowling. It's coed and you can rent the shoes.

I would go with bowling because we could hold down costs by renting the shoes.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no. Was it over when Steve McNees had the ball with 6 seconds remaining? Hell no. And it ain't over now. The German's bombed Pearl Harbor!! You can't believe everything you read on the Internet Capt. That's how World War I got started.

I think the AD should schedule better teams and recruit better recruits.