odhgibo

This topic seems to reappear every couple months, and it always seems elicit a large number of comments and a good deal of passion. IMHO, the arena is one piece to a bigger puzzle, but it is a piece. A new arena will not directly result in greater fan support and general interest (see Infocision), but it probably is a prerequisite. The problem is a larger one, involving image, perception, value, history, and dozens of other factors, all of which prevent the development of passion. One of the largest involves the media. When the largest sports talker in NE Ohio is an affiliate of Columbus State, you're fighting an uphill battle. When the largest radio stations in Wooster, Canton and Akron are as well, uphill becomes nigh unto vertical. The OSU is "big time," while all other college options are not. If I'm a basketball fan but not an alum, I don't view any of the MAC schools as anything more than glorified D-II, even though that's completely incorrect. Thus, the arena is just a piece, but all the pieces form a bigger picture on which perceptions are based. (The biggest of those pieces is the conference and the miserable state to which it has sunk, IMO.)

To tell you something about my life, the thought of asking to borrow the tape actually ran through my head. I was surprised that Andrick wasn't as tall as I expected when I saw him in person (coaching Springfield). The same might have been true for Nik, but I have no data on that. I still don't know how Bosley was able to score in D1, given his lack of size and speed. I couldn't believe when OSU offered him a full ride, and I couldn't believe when he became a scoring force when he transferred to UA. Ball was the best overall PG I've seen at UA in my 15 years of watching. Good memories.

No, it was your's truly who got it wrong, at least with respect to college. Picture egg all over face here. The college version of Rule 4.34 differs from the NFHS version in a key respect. It adds another article: Art. 3. When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player. This difference is made explicit at the download available at the NFHS and NCAA 2012-13 Major Basketball Rules Differences link at this page. Thus, if you see the Dieng-type play in a college game, it IS a goaltending violation. The same is not true for a high school game, however. In the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Nevermind."

Not picking on you per se, LOZ, but you just happened to provide the best opportunity to address this issue. Once again, CBS's color commentators (in this case Kellogg and Kerr) did not know a rule, flatly stated that the officials missed a call, and left the entire country with the impression that the officiating was inadequate. In fact, it was Kerr & Kellogg who got it wrong. Let me state this upfront: the ball touching the backboard is completely irrelevant to determining whether or not goaltending has occurred! This is Rule 4-34 (Goaltending): Art. 1. Goaltending shall have occurred when a defensive player touches the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met: a. The ball is in its downward flight; and b. The entire ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the cylinder. The ball that Dieng blocked might have been in its downward flight, but Kerr & Kellogg stated that goaltending should have been automatic once the ball hit the backboard. Wrong! (That said, the Burke-on-Siva block did look clean from the angles that I saw.)

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that this was no different from a regular season game, just that the number of minutes need to be taken into account. I thought he looked pretty comfortable.

Andrick would've complemented Tree and Zeke, not taken minutes from either. The MAC was far better then than it is now, so it's hard to compare the two teams. I hope to have some stats compiled on this in the next month or so.

Zeke played decently in the NABC Reese's game. His stats: Min - 20 Pts - 7 FG - 3-7 3FG - 0-0 FT - 1-3 Off reb - 1 Def reb - 5 Tot reb - 6 Asst - 0 TO - 0 Blk - 3 Stl - 1 Multiply by 1.5 to get to his normal 30 min, and you have essentially a "normal" game: 10 pts, 9 reb., 4 blocks. He didn't dominate, but he didn't look out of place, either.

The article was written when he was a junior. He received higher honors as a senior; see here and here. That conference also is where Aaron Jackson plays, as can be seen in the first of the two links.

You were wise to add this proviso. In spite incessant whining, Andrick could play. Put him on a team where he didn't need to play low post by himself, and he'd have been very good. Pair him with Zeke and Tree and you'd have seen something really fun. Bosley could fill it up despite limited physical tools. He might have clashed with Coach KD, but he could score like no one the Zips have seen in a long time.

The North-South game is April 21 at Capital University. The Ohio-Kentucky game is April 13 at Thomas More College. Rosters are not yet announced, but I've heard rumors that Johnson has been invited to play in this one.

Sorta true. Michigan was beating the press both off the dribble and the pass. The passes, however, weren't stationary and point-to-point; the guy receiving the ball was moving toward the basket (i.e., full head of steam) and used the dribble to maintain that momentum. Had Akron done its standard throw-over-the-top-to-a-stationary-big-guy, the trap would have been just as successful. To be honest, though, I'm not sure what Akron did would have changed the outcome. VCU played what had to be one of its 3 best (offensive) games of the year. Everything was dropping ... teardrops, three pointers, backdowns, etc. Very few times did Michigan show a desire to cross the timeline with the intent of running a set offense; that was a fallback position if its first 2-3 (fullcourt) options didn't pan out. In the halfcourt, it helped that VCU respected Michigan's wing players' ability to shoot. That left the lane open for McGary to cut and/or drive one-on-one.

I watched both games to the 3rd TV timeout. I watched them in reverse order, to get a sense of what some saw as VCU being taken out of its game which I then could use as a baseline for the Akron game. No, no, no, a thousand times no. VCU had at most 3 fouls by the 8-minute timeout in the Michigan game. Granted, Theus had two of them, but he deserved both. Michigan had a far better gameplan on how to attack the press, and executed it far better as well. Michigan kept pushing the ball all the way to the basket or as far as VCU's backline players would allow penetration. UM wanted to score every time it entered the frontcourt. When it didn't score immediately, it had 3 players who could handle the ball plus an open lane area to facilitate drives and cutting. Akron wanted to follow its regular season script -- get the ball into the frontcourt, pound it inside and take advantage of its size advantage. Wrong thing to do. VCU had no fear of Akron's outside shooting, so they used off ball players to come and double the entry of the off-ball post player. They had 4 or 5 guys in the lane for rebounding as well while, inexplicably, Akron often pulled 4 (or all 5) back for defense, i.e., no chance of offensive rebounds. To make matters worse, Tree looked lost on defense at the outset, and Kretzer looked like the ball was burning his hands. VCU was on fire at the outset in the Akron game, and the Akron gameplan was such that big runs were highly unlikely.

I'll see whether I can find replays of each on the cbssports.com site and watch to the 3rd TV timeout of each. (Given where the Akron game was when I picked it up, I had no desire to go back to see how they got there.)

Telling stat lines from back-to-back VCU games: Name Min / FG / 3Pt / FT / Off / Reb / Ast / TO / Stl / Blk / PF / Pts C. Betancourt 31 0-5 0-3 3-4 0 6 4 5 0 0 2 3 T. Burke 37 6-14 2-6 4-4 0 2 7 7 2 0 2 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Z. Marshall 32 4-7 0-0 3-5 3 5 0 1 0 4 3 11 M. McGary 34 10-11 0-0 1-1 4 14 1 2 1 0 1 21 Never would have predicted that Betancourt would out-rebound Zeke. Never would have predicted that Betancourt would have fewer turnovers than Burke. Never would have predicted that McGary would outplay Zeke, let alone by so much.

Due to traveling on business, I saw only the last 15 min. of the Zips game on Thursday and was only able to duck in and out of the VCU-UM game on Saturday. Before the game, I opined that Akron could be no more than -7 or -8 in TOs and needed to be at least +7 or +8 in rebounds. As I look at the stat sheet, they were -16 in TOs and, even worse, -5 in rebounds. Add in a few more ugly stats -- 58% shooting from the line, 8% shooting from behind the arc, a total of 5 assists and only 2 steals -- and this one was a lost cause from the outset. The box scores of the two games indicate that one official, Mike Whitehead (Big 12 & MVC), worked both games. The other two in the Zips game were Duke Edsall (C-USA and Big 12) and Jeff Smith (America East and Horizon). The other two in the UM game were Chris Rastatter (Pac 12 and Big Sky) and Mike Reed (Pac 12 and Mtn. West). A total of 12 fouls were called on Akron vs. 17 on VCU, although I get the impression from other posts that VCU could have been called for many more. As a point of comparison, VCU also was called for more fouls in the UM game (14-7). VCU definitely will grab as much as they're permitted. I have a fundamental disagreement with some of my brethren about this. The general consensus is to try to talk the players out of this and call it only when it directly affects a scoring play; otherwise, the general mindset is that "these are big boys who should be allowed to play." I'm of the opinion that it leads to bigger problems (i.e., more flagrant holding and retaliation), so it should be nipped in the bud early in a game.

You are, of course, 100% correct. The talk here, including mine, is admittedly bereft of anything approaching any grounding in reality. Complete fantasyland. With all of the talk of upsets and parity that went on this weekend, my perusal of the Sweet 16 leads me to think otherwise. Here's a listing of the teams split by conference where they'll be after realignment: Big 10 (4) - IU, OSU, UM, MSU ACC (4) - Miami, Duke, L'ville, 'Cuse Pac 12 (2) - Ariz., Ore. Big 12 (1) - KU SEC (1) - Fla. New Big East/Catholic 7 (1) - Marquette A10 (1) - LaSalle (yeah, AKZ, that LaSalle) The Valley (1) - Wichita St. Atlantic Sun (1) - FGCU For all the talk of parity and the mid-majors catching up, 1/2 of the regional qualifiers come from 2 conferences, and 3/4 are from the 5 power conferences. Going forward, I think the road for those outside of "on the edge" conferences, like the A10 and Missouri Valley, will be even more difficult. It will take a lightning-in-a-bottle run like FGCU after winning a conference tournament. (Did anyone else get a twinge of what-the-MAC-might-have-been-itis watching Groce coach against Larranaga?)

Some of this discussion reminds me of a complaint about Tressel: he built teams to win the Big 10, which then couldn't match up against SEC teams. There's more than one type of team that can win the MAC, but not all of those styles will have similar success rates against teams from other leagues.

Yeah, LaSalle looked very mediocre today. VCU and SLU are miles better than any other MAC team. The East Coast schools vary from year-to-year, but they occasionally have very good teams. When's the last time EMU or NIU ever had even a decent team? When Earl Boykins played? Football is the albatross.

Yeah, LaSalle looked very mediocre today. VCU and SLU are miles better than any other MAC team. The East Coast schools vary from year-to-year, but they occasionally have very good teams. When's the last time EMU or NIU ever had even a decent team? When Earl Boykins played? Football is the albatross.

Charlotte is heading to C-USA. Absent some further change(s), the A10 will have 12 schools next year. With Butler and Xavier leaving, it will lose it's status as an "on the cusp" league. It's still miles ahead of the MAC. Probably 3 invitations each year, plus 4-5 teams in other tournaments. Provides exposure all along the East Coast plus Pittsburgh and St. Louis. I'm all for it, even though it would be an eye opening slap in the face to those used to MAC competition. Alas, the university president still seems to think that football rules the roost.

The gameplan assuredly was to try to control tempo. But that's a two-way street: it also was VCU's gameplan. What you saw from the Rams last night was a style that we used to see a lot more of in the late 1960s to mid-1980s. Pressure everywhere, with traps coming anywhere, any time. Those old enough to remember Nolan Richardson's 60 Minutes of Hell felt like they'd gone back in time. It's a style that's fun to watch (unless your team is playing against it) and very effective against teams that don't see it often. (There hasn't been a MAC team that played anything close to that style in 20+ years. Heck, that's also true of the Big Ten and, to some extent, the ACC.) The Rams modus operandi is to impose their will on you and MAKE you play faster than you want to play. Once you speed up a little, it's hard to slow down. And each time that you play faster than you're used to, mistakes go up exponentially...not just turnovers, but missed shots, passes that aren't quite as accurate, fumbling the ball which prevents an easy drive, etc. Do not be surprised AT ALL if Michigan also is made to look silly. The CBS talking heads were droning on about quality of guard play after last night's debacle, but it has less to do with quality than it does pace. Quality detoriates quickly when it's asked to play at a pace beyond what it's used to. Eventually, the Rams will hit a team that doesn't mind playing at that speed. That team will still have 15+ turnovers, but they'll also get 20-25 easy points because they'll make good decisions with the ball. My money is on Kansas, but that might not be the case, particularly if VCU shoots the way it did last night.

Why not get out heads handed to us (for awhile) in a good conference than let the overall weakness of the MAC fool people into thinking that a good record equals an elite team? Zips not ready to compete at the very highest level, but what you're seeing here is not what VCU did for 95% of the season.

Anyone who saw the beatdown that VCU put on Butler realized how good they could be. I had them beating Michigan and almost took them to beat KU. They are an elite team, which didn't play up to capability for stretches throughout the year. Akron would have done better against many, many other teams in the tournament. The draw was horrible.

I am truly sorry things went so far south, so fast. (Just got done with all-day meetings.) It's tough to compare compare relatives speeds until teams are on the floor at the same time. Once that happens, however, ... (Just saw Kretzer get his pocket picked, and he didn't even know how it happened.) VCU shooting out the lights couldn't have been predicted, but that just turned a 20-point lead into a 35-point lead. This team is still better than the versions that lost to Gonzaga (2009) and Notre Dame (2011), but the matchup was just absolutely horrendous. Louisville might have been the only one that would have been worse.