skip-zip

If the goal is to have an occasional upset over a higher-ranked team, then, yes, I'd support scheduling lots of tough opponents to improve the statistical odds of scoring the occasional upset. But the real goal should be improving the overall performance of the team. So the real question should be what SOS increases your chances of becoming a better team -- an easy schedule, a balanced schedule, or a really tough schedule?If there was a simple answer, every team would be doing it. But there isn't a simple answer. I know of no conclusive study showing that teams that deliberately set up the toughest schedules tend to become better teams than those with more balanced schedules of weaker, moderate, and stronger teams. I suspect that the best all-around schedule is one that's balanced with a variety of opponents with varying levels of strength -- not too weak and not too strong overall. A fair question, except that we already know two things. 1) An easy schedule with 26 wins can still result in a complete lack of respect in national polls, and a complete shutout from the post-season selection committees. We were certainly "better" that year. Maybe even great compared to many other years. And it got us nowhere. So, we can wipe "easy schedule" off the board as an option, don't you think? We need to stop being ignorant to the fact that winning 20+ games with a poor overall SOS is helping us make up any ground on the national scene. 2) If "balanced" defines what we're doing now, then it's obviously not good enough since we weren't even in the talk for an at-large bid to the Big Dance in any of the last 6 seasons. Sprinkling Dayton and Minnesota into a 30 game schedule is just so far from where we need to be to get the job done. We weren't in talks for an at-large because we always manage to lose to a MAC West team or two, along with not winning against the top teams we actually did schedule. Dayton and Minnesota alone won't get us in, but Dayton, Minnesota, Miami, Temple, and Cleveland State might, if you can beat three or four of them and not lose to EMU and NIU. By the way, what's it like to be perpetually stuck in March 2005? The bad losses stunk, as Ada Zip points out too. But, come on. Our schedule strength was something like #158. Winning a few more games wouldn't have made any difference in terms of at-large talk. Two many other conference losses on top of that anyway. Plus, as I've pointed out many times before, you are putting pressure on 18 year old kids to play near-perfect through your entire schedule, and that doesn't happen. It stinks to be stuck in 2005. Unfortunately, it's also a prime example of where we stand nationally when we win almost all of our games, but have a weak SOS.

If the goal is to have an occasional upset over a higher-ranked team, then, yes, I'd support scheduling lots of tough opponents to improve the statistical odds of scoring the occasional upset. But the real goal should be improving the overall performance of the team. So the real question should be what SOS increases your chances of becoming a better team -- an easy schedule, a balanced schedule, or a really tough schedule?If there was a simple answer, every team would be doing it. But there isn't a simple answer. I know of no conclusive study showing that teams that deliberately set up the toughest schedules tend to become better teams than those with more balanced schedules of weaker, moderate, and stronger teams. I suspect that the best all-around schedule is one that's balanced with a variety of opponents with varying levels of strength -- not too weak and not too strong overall. A fair question, except that we already know two things. 1) An easy schedule with 26 wins can still result in a complete lack of respect in national polls, and a complete shutout from the post-season selection committees. We were certainly "better" that year. Maybe even great compared to many other years. And it got us nowhere. So, we can wipe "easy schedule" off the board as an option, don't you think? We need to stop being ignorant to the fact that winning 20+ games with a poor overall SOS is helping us make up any ground on the national scene. 2) If "balanced" defines what we're doing now, then it's obviously not good enough since we weren't even in the talk for an at-large bid to the Big Dance in any of the last 6 seasons. Sprinkling Dayton and Minnesota into a 30 game schedule is just so far from where we need to be to get the job done.

Wrong lesson. We play enough major programs. That isn't the problem. The Zips have to start winning those games and stop losing to the Daytons and CSUs of the world. "Learning how to win" has to end with a team actually winning to prove they have learned the lesson. If they can't do that, they will always be this good team stuck in an a "building process" or whatever we have rebranded it these days. And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right? Only if you believe that getting those wins is based on random chance. See my first post in this thread

Wrong lesson. We play enough major programs. That isn't the problem. The Zips have to start winning those games and stop losing to the Daytons and CSUs of the world. "Learning how to win" has to end with a team actually winning to prove they have learned the lesson. If they can't do that, they will always be this good team stuck in an a "building process" or whatever we have rebranded it these days. And you increase your chances of winning a big game when you play more of them. Right?

As much as I was pulling for Shaka last night, I'm ready to pull for Butler to win tomorrow night. And I hope everyone else will do the same. This could be the biggest thing to ever happen to mid-major level college basketball. Yes, Butler is now officially the new Gonzaga. But, they are also reaching places Gonzaga never reached. Can they now close the deal and take the ultimate prize? I think college basketball fans are learning one thing: When teams are winning so-called "lower level conferences", they are still learning how to win. And that makes them dangerous no matter who they are playing. I think some Akron fans can learn something as well: We are also a program that knows how to win, and we can beat these "major" teams too.....BUT WE HAVE TO PLAY THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

Oh my gosh! They got him to mention some names in Report #7

Of course we're spoiled. And there's nothing wrong with that. We lost alot of good players. It might take some time. I'm just continually amused at sports fans when they get so consumed by exhibition games, and then say that they don't matter when their team loses. If they don't mean anything, then why do you even pay attention to them? Make up your minds

Are you serious? His association with possibly the best basketball player on the planet is a negative?

When and Athletic Director fires one coach and hires another, I expect the team to do better with the new coach. Coach I had something like 17 returning starters off of a team that won something like three games the year before. I expected the new coach to win more than three. I agree with you that this is often the logical expectation. But, it's also true that coaches sometimes have awful beginnings and grow powerful programs. For me, I simply observe, and trust my instincts. I distinctly remember having a bad feeling about what I was seeing at the beginning of the LO era, and I have many of those same feelings now. I just don't think this guy has what it takes.

This one will stick in my mind, however it turns out, I will remember this quote: ''I think Akron is a sleeping giant. You have got to give them two or three more years. The way they can coach and recruit, this is going to be a juggernaut.'' This quote -- "Akron is a sleeping giant," is officially 25 years old...my, how time flies! It was first uttered by Gerry Faust upon his UA hiring, and printed in Sports Illustrated. Years ago I went to an off-campus house party, and I can recall seeing that SI clipping Scotch-taped to a cupboard door in the kitchen. Rip Van Vinkle had set the previous "Gold Standard" for naps @ 20 years. UA football has set the New Gold Standard...25 years and still counting! I recall this the same way. I think everyone has always looked at the fact that Akron is a large school in terms of enrollment, and sits right in the middle of a talent hotbed. And I think they are right to look at those factors as contributing to Akron's POTENTIAL as a football power. Unfortunately for us, it's amounted to a 25 year pattern of a couple of steps forward followed by a couple of steps back.

Tressel's rotting corpse, dangling in the wind, will never get old. Amen!!....and Akronnnnnn, I'm afraid it's still only the beginning of this story.

I love the idea. But, it could possibly mean that he just hasn't talked in the last few days.

I'm not sure he has many other options other than loyalty. He could probably pick up a gig like Bradley or something like that, but there is no difference between Bradley and Akron. He wouldn't be taken as seriously at a school like Bradly as he is at Akron for a lot of reasons. KD has is great at Akron and isn't going anywhere. His team wins. Even when they don't win, not many people are paying attention. There are a number of people who, for whatever reason, are fascinated by him coaching LBJ in high school. The CMU issue wouldn't be ignored at another school. He makes a ton of money for a MAC coach, especially an Akron coach. If KD left Akron, he would be subject to the meat grinder that is college coaching. He isn't going to do that. Being King at Akron is a lot better than risking becoming a joker at another school. Some of you can yell at me now claiming I pick on KD. I'm not. I think my analysis is fair and is the kind of thing that would be written in the media if Akron had a decent media with decent writer instead of the Terry Pluto knock offs. I don't think either of you touched on one very important factor. Keith is an Akron guy. Grew up in Akron, played sports at the U of A, and got his first break in basketball coaching from an Akron coach. He has strong ties to Akron and this University that simply don't exist in most other situations where you have a consistent winner at a mid-level school who may have opportunities to go elsewhere.

I want to see one bracket that has the #3 #4 #8 and #11 seeds in the Final 4 There were plenty of people who predicted that there was going to be a lot of surprises this year since the top teams really weren't that good. They were right.

I think they should name it: "The Place that Soon-to-Be Mediocre/Bad Coaches Leave as Quickly as Humanly Possible" "Cradle of Coaches? Puh-LEEZ... Where was Gary Waters...the guy that flopped @ Rutgers... this NCAA tourney? Watching the Zips on TV, alongside Jim Christian, Gino Ford and Stan Heath. An interesting stat for two of these "Legends" - Christian and Heath went a combined 2-30 in league play this year. At Akron, we keep our winning Head Coaches. Assistants depart, and subsequently have tremendous success at the highest level of D-1 basketball (Shaka - VCU, Boals - Ohio State, Paris - Wisconsin) Ford had a great salary and a great returning nucleus @ K.e.n.t. (losing one senior)...and yet he headed on the first train for Bradley? As AI would say - "Bradley? We talkin' about Bradley? BRADLEY?! Ford saw the writing on the wall...the MAC East is the Zips playground for the next 2+ seasons. His stock was only going to plummet. Like those who preceded him, he knew better than to hang around. Best news for the Zips - Laing Kennedy - an AD that actually knew how to hire mid-major hoops coaches - is gone. Can't wait to hear Thunder Dan Hipsher's name surface as a leading candidate. Great Post! I'd love to hear what Rutgers, Arkansas, and TCU have to say about their decisions to go after Ken+ coaches who they felt were ready to make big things happen at a higher level.

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing. What are the chances that a defending National Champion has to play a ROAD GAME at Akron at the start of the following season? Could you imagine the ticket demand from just the casual college basketball fans in the area? And what an opportunity for us. The last time something like this happened, we had to play #2 Pitt at the Richfield Coliseum in 1987. But, we don't have that option anymore.

I don't recall hearing that our perimeter players are being told not to shoot since Dambrot has been here. Even when Humpty missed 23 3-pointers in a row at one point (or however many it was) I never heard that he didn't have the green light. If you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it.

Akron Football: I get your point in this, and previous posts. You like PN. Maybe Roo is a slight bit harsh with his "horribly inaccurate" assessment, although it's hard to argue. I just question your angry insistence that the extreme innaccuarcy should be blamed on receivers and protection. The problem is certainly much bigger when you lag so far behind almost all of your peers in D-1A. Besides the obvious problems with accuracy that we've seen with our own eyes, in order for your excuses to be true, we'd also have to assume that the other 114 QBs with better passer ratings had good protection and receivers. We know that can't be true, and Keener points out some of the data to support it.

My wife called him the lyingist liar who ever lied. His worst nightmare came true last night when the basketball team lost. OSU fans have already forgotten they have a basketball team and are now focusing on football. It's only going to get worse. SOMEONE needs to step in and get the ball rolling on Tressel's firing. It can be members of the Board of Directors if the president of the University isn't going to step in. There is a bigger picture here as well and it has nothing to do with football and everything to do with the integrity of the flagship university of Ohio. This is starting to leave a stink beyond football, all the way up to the president of the University. It looks terrible and everyone in Ohio supports every state university through tax money. The taxpayers deserve better. OSU needs to fire Tressel and then throw themselves at the mercy of the NCAA. If they don't do these things internally, then someone from the outside has to step in. The governor of Ohio has a lot to do and this isn't something he should be involved, but if they can't get it together at tOSU, he is going to have to step in. It would be a shame if it got to that point, but it seems as if there is not going to be another way out. One side of me agrees with you. The other side of me just wants to continue to sit back and laugh hysterically as they keep digging their hole deeper with lies and excuses.

I hope the Lone Ranger comes in here and leads us to two bowl game victory's in his time here. With that said, I'm not giving up on PN7 yet, he was a young kid with a LOT of things going against him last year. No excuses this year, it's time he sinks or swims. Getting CM, might just make a healthy competition a positive thing for PN7. I kind of expected a few raving reviews of the Lone Ranger after the first practice, I was a little disappointed not to see that. Doesn't mean anything though. The Zips continue to schedule the spring game the same time as my spring golf trip, and with no tv coverage, I have to depend on the good folks at ZN to give me the low down on what they really see in the Lone Ranger. And the new QB will have to deal with many of the same issues. And some of those issues might even be more challenging this year, considering the personnel issues. But, a guy who can throw an accurate football with any kind of reasonable frequency would still make a big difference.

I'll say it again. What are the chances that we got Moore to come here with only the "opportunity to compete" for the starting QB job? I don't like to be harsh, but a few of you folks really need to wake up. With almost two years of experience under his belt, we have the #115 rated QB in D-1A. Unless Moore somehow completely fails to show his talent and ability between now and September, why would we waste anymore time?

That is a great find !!! I'd guess that most players on D-II All American teams never played again. Just to see 3 NBA players come out of D-II at one time is amazing enough, but 3 HOFs ?

He's more than just a player to watch. What are the chances that we got him to come here with only the "possiblity" that he would be the starter? My guess is, pretty close to ZERO.

In a case like this, I'm always a bit bothered when I hear coaches in their 2nd season talking a lot about everyone feeling more comfortable because they're going through this for the 2nd time. I don't know. As a fan, when you know your team is horrible, and coming off of a 1-11 season, I guess you don't like hearing that ANYTHING is going to be the same as what we did last year.

Ok, I have to admit that I have a more positive view of the publicity you can possibly get from a good run in the NIT. I actually heard a couple of people talking about this game that would normally never talk about MAC basketball.