odhgibo

So you want a half-size (New Mexico) Pit?

+1. I don't see significant separation between seeds 1-4 this year, but I do between the 4 seeds and the likely 5 seeds. Watched tOSU play very well at IU last night after the Zips-Miami game. All signs of offensive ineptitude from about a month ago are gone. If they continue to play at that level, they have a chance at beating any team in the country. Nevertheless, the general consensus is that they're still a #4. The present Lunardi bracket has Akron as a #12, playing SLU. The Billikens are downright nasty on D, but they're not going to run away from very many tournament teams and will have trouble with certain styles.

I'm not sure whether I'd go so far as spoiled, but I do think the circumstances are sufficiently different to merit a different reaction. Akron had played 5 D1 seasons leading up to the 1985-86 season. In those 5 years, they had won 8, 7, 8, 14, and 12 games. To make matters worse, the first four of those years were headed by Bob Rupert, who left the program on probation. That 1985-86 team was down a couple scholarships due to the probation, and Hugs was looking for athletic bodies to fill out the roster. That they won the OVC title was both unexpected and thrilling. The only analogy that I can come up with, and it's not perfect, is Toledo winning next year's league title. I think UT fans would be expected to be more excited about a league title should one come their way than would Akron or OU.

Nick's length is such that he should be a tough match-up for most SFs. He should be getting the ball near the lane and/or driving far more than he is. The free throw stats that BZ compiled (thank you, btw) prove the point. He's averaging less than 3 FTs/game, when he should be getting to the line 4+ times each game. He reminds me of a slick fielding shortstop who wants to hit the long ball. He'd be far better off playing to his strengths, then spending the summer working on 10-15 J's.

Let's compare/contrast two situations. Gonzage -- Monson ... became Gonzaga's head coach ... in March 1997.... While at the helm at Gonzaga, the Bulldogs compiled a 52–17 (.754) record. The 1999 team ... advanced to the regional final (Elite Eight), taking ... eventual national champion, Connecticut, down to the last minute, losing by five points. [stan] Heath got his first collegiate head coach job at Can't State in 2002. Under his guidance, the Golden Flashes finished with a 30–6 record that year and ... came within a victory of reaching the Final Four before falling to Indiana at the South Regional finals .... So, why did Gonzaga go on to bigger and better things, while Can't State did not? Per DiG's article, Gonzaga's administration decided to invest heavily in the program after reaching the Elite 8 in 1999, even though the team has never gotten past that point since then. Can't State did not and, after one or two recruiting classes turned out to be less than expected, Can't State lost its "on the edge of relevance" status. Gonzaga has remained relevant for over a decade. The margin of error for mid-majors is thin. Money mitigates much of that risk.

Thanks, DiG. Haven't read the NYT article, but I've seen others on the same topic. To me, the take away is that D-1 basketball is similar to certain games of chance (skill?): if you don't ante up, you can't play the game, but paying that ante is no guarantee of success. During the Bracketbuster telecast, ESPN included a graphic about consecutive conference tournament appearances. Akron's 6 are the second longest current streak. Gonzaga, of course, was first with 15(!). I had to look it up to prove it to myself. Not only was it correct, it's also 17-of-18. Mark Few was preceded by Dan Monson, who left after 2 years as the Zags' HC to take the same position at Minnesota. Monson had been a Gonzaga assistant for nearly a decade before taking the lead chair in 1997, which was near the beginning of the incredible 15-year run. Apparently, he didn't see what was to come and, instead, took off for what looked like greener pastures. Monson was preceded by a guy who had been there for two decades who had a very good, but not great, record. Other than John Stockton, the best thing that he did was hire both Monson and Few, who were able to take the team to the next level with the benefit of the increased funding. Butler took a slightly different path to a similar endpoint. Thad Matta had a cup of coffee in 2000-01 before leaving for X and turning the reins over to Todd Lickliter who, after 5-6 seasons, decided Iowa was his greener pasture. Stevens then took things to the next level. The success that they had for a decade upped the fan interest, donations, and sponsorships. Both programs have had a run of very good coaches, both head and assistants. That seems to be the other prerequisite.

"Best" under what standard? I think that team at its best couldn't beat this team at its best; I don't remember that team having as much quality depth. Maybe that team played at/close to its ability more often. That's what a coach wants to see, so maybe that's the standard he's using.

We're talking seeds, not abstract better-worse. (Even in the abstract, most systems that include margin of victory still rate Butler higher than Akron, btw.) Any team that has won at UNC and IU and beaten Gonzaga at home will get a higher seed than whichever team gets the MAC automatic bid. (Of course, if Butler tanks and doesn't win another game, that might change. I'm going on YTD only, because that's what the ranking system was using. Butler has a tough road game at UMass on Thursday, followed by a home game against X on Saturday, so it could be going into its conference tournament on a 4-game losing streak.)

Looking at the full set of charts and analysis makes me think that this site needs to reevaluate its algorithm. No way does the MAC winner -- whomever it is -- get seeded higher than the likes of Butler, SDSU, Mizzou, Cincinnati, and Wichita St. Teams other than Akron seeded too high: Virginia and UCLA. W2@Q, then cross your fingers for a #12 rather than #13 seed.

A post in another thread read as follows: "[T]he Zips hosted top five ranked Pittsburgh at the old Richfield Coliseum. That game drew over fifteen thousand clear back in the Bob Huggins era." I was able to find the details on that. The announced attendance was 11,365. Was not able to find the details of the 1986 CSU game, but I did find some pretty high attendance figures for the 1985-86 season -- 5500 for YSU, 7100 for Murray St., 5500 for Austin Peay, 5600 for Tennessee Tech (OVC tourney) and 6700 for MTSU (OVC finals). If those Huggins' teams could draw 5-7K for OVC teams (at least after proving that they could win), there's no reason why this version of the Zips couldn't average 5K+, even in the MAC. With that in mind, I side with those who want a 7-8K seating capacity. The only proviso to this is if the arena is a joint venture with the city which wants to bring in other events (and maybe minor league hockey), in which case the arrangement will tend to push the seating capacity a little higher.

I remember how pleased I was when the Zips were able to join the MAC after time in the OVC and a cup of coffee in the Mid-Continent Conference (after, if I recall, an announcement that they would be joining the NEC). The MAC now is not the same conference as it was in the 1980s and '90s, however, at least in basketball. I have some stats that are almost fully compiled on this, which I hope will spur some discussion. More later.

My assumption is that you want to win out. If so, the magic number is 10 -- 2 regular season, 2 MAC tournament, round of 64, round of 32, sweet 16, elite 8, final 4, and championship.

These are types of things that factor into a trap game. They're real. Don't kid yourself into thinking that young kids are automatons, who can just turn it on when the ball goes in the air.

A few of us (LZ, SZ, etc.) sensed problems. Trap games are real. A big, emotional comeback victory against a rival takes a toll both physically and emotionally. These are 18-22 y.o. kids, many of whom are facing this type of situation for the first time. Combine that with Alumni Hall being a very tough to play (Zips are now 4-10), and this had all the markings of a trap game.

I'd like to see what I could do with 5 Javon McCreas!

Big comeback on the way now!

Step slow, missing jumpers ... tired team.

Ibitayo got the benefit of a generous "act of shooting" determination on that one

Enjoying your color commentary

I hope that his school hasn't fudged his height. (Could a 6'10" lineman really get low enough to get leverage?)

That conference lineup includes some good sized media markets -- Philly, Cincy, Tampa, Orlando, Houston, Dallas, Hartford, New Orleans, DC and Memphis. (ECU is the media out-lier, but they have a large enrollment w/ some football tradition.) There aren't many natural rivals among the members, but that can change over time. Akron doesn't really bring the Cleveland metro media market, so it probably is not as desirable as Tulsa. Is there any way they could bump it to 16 teams split into two divisions? Seems to me that the natural areas to look would be cities like San Antonio, Atlanta, Charlotte, KC, St. Louis, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit and New York.

He's also not as quick to yank guys for mental lapses on D.

I'm in the same boat. UB lost a tough one on the road and figures that it can salvage a down year by being the team to put a 1 in the Zips' L column.

FWIW (which is next to zero this early in March), Lunardi now has Akron up to a #11, playing Pitt. Both Pomeroy and Sagarin rate Pitt as worthy of much higher than #6 seed, btw.

The current surmising is that X and Butler will join and that Creighton might be invited. Dayton and St. Louis are projected to join the following year. (Talk about a meat grinder schedule!) I found myself daydreaming about January nights watching Marquette, Georgetown, Butler, etc., at the JAR (or, hopefully, its replacement). I hope those of you who are football fans forgive me, but I caught myself wishing that the Zips had canned the football program after the Ianello debacle so that maybe it could be Akron rather than Creighton under consideration.