skip-zip

One thing really stuck out at me. Nik as a #3?

If only they had built a domed stadium in Cleveland.

I come here to see bad information about OSwho....not jubilant pictures of their coach. The Suckeye are our enemy...not Michigan. Without rehashing everything again in detail, please note once again that defensive alignments are...well...defensive alignments. You choose them to utilize personnel, and put players in what you feel is the best situations to make plays. But at the snap of the ball, the players still need to make the plays. Can anyone name a defensive player for Akron in the JD era who you could consistently rely on every down to make a play? Besides John Mackey? If so, I don't think it would be a very long list. The versatility of that alignment is the big benefit. And I am sure that there are teams that have had, and will have, a lot of success with it.

skip, there is a reason that many folks, me included, switched to the Nicely camp after clamoring for Rodgers to play. Once Matt Rodgers was exposed to actual game speed he was simply overwhelmed. Frankly, the game was way too fast for him. Matt showed no sighs of catching up. Pat Nicely stepped up and delivered right out of the box. There was plenty of talk at Spring practice that Nicely (still in HS) was better than CJ or MR. Truth is, he is. I actually agree with some of what you are saying, especially as it pertains to Matt. But, I am curious about a couple of things. You say that Pat "delivered right out of the box". What sold you on this conclusion more? His 9 of 23 performance against Ohio? Or, his 11 of 27 performance against NIU? And I sure hope that his high school playoff performance in which his offense put NO points on the board was ignored if anyone truly thought he was ready to be a D1 starter. After the Central Michigan game (Matt's last start), we never scored over 20 points again the rest of the season, with the exception of two home games against two of the worst teams in the MAC. That's also not going to help give me the impression that we somehow found answers to our offensive woes over the last 8 games with Pat at the helm. Sorry...I was a long way away from any thought that "we've found our QB" after last season. I'm not sold on either of them, and really was hoping that our new coach had brought in a transfer QB with him. I just sure hope that one, or both of them, has made some good progress during the off season.

The picture is actually pretty small and simple: It was the subject of a lot of conversation two years ago...but it isn't any longer. Why? Because the change has proven to be irrelevant. A two year sampling of hundred of teams and thousands of games has proven -- the 12" 3-point line change has done nothing to widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots". What's that GP1 line? Something like "...you want it to be one way, but it's the other." What you say may or may not be true. But it's still not clear if your personal conclusion is the result of studying specific data or just a casual assumption. If you could point me to the source of your data sampling, I'll gladly agree with you if what you've based your conclusion on is as compelling to me as it obviously has been to you. I was thinking the same thing. I'll be kind and make a further comment in the form of a question: How can any change that widens offensive sets (even if it's only 12" on both sides), opens the floor, makes it more difficult to play team defense, and naturally creates more man-on-man matchups be anything other than a disadvantage to a slower, smaller, or "less athletically inclined" team? That is....assuming that the top echelon teams are quicker, bigger, and more athletic.

Skip, you're absolutely correct that one of the stated reasons for the NCAA moving the 3-point arc back was to spread defenses out a little more, giving more offensive spacing and increased room to operate for post players in the paint as well as players using pass or dribble penetration. This would likely have at least as much affect on the college game as the change in 3-point shooting percentages. Racer did not address this issue in his original comment, focusing more on how the longer 3-point range would tend to hurt mid-majors more than majors. Fact is, the "have" coaches like Rick Pitino have lobbied in favor of an NBA-length 3-point arc in college, arguing that the best college players need to be prepared for the next step to pro ball. Obviously there are many more future NBA players at major "have" schools than the mid-major "have-nots." Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions from this. Any effect from spreading the floor would be even more difficult to measure statistically than 3-point shooting averages. Maybe someone has already done this, but I haven't found it. The combined 3-point shooting and floor spreading effect of moving the arc back a foot on majors vs. mid-majors might best be measured by analyzing results of all games between majors and mid-majors before and after the rule change. But that would require a lot of number crunching. For starters, it would also require a clear definition of major and mid-major. One need look no further than this thread to see that there's disagreement on which teams are majors or mid-majors. There is some inconclusive data that points to mid-majors suffering last season (2008-9), the first season of the extended 3-point arc, in terms of at-large bids to the NCAA tournament. Since 1997, the greatest number of mid-major at-large bids was 12 in 1998 and 2004, and the lowest number was 4 last season, the first with the extended 3-point arc. But as far as I've been able to determine, no one has yet come up with a definitive answer supported by hard data that's immediately clear to all. In the absence of definitive data, I think that most people will keep an open mind and continue looking for good data to help formulate an informed opinion. I suppose there's also the option to listen to and believe in The Great Wizard of Oz, thundering out great unquestionable absolutes amidst much fire, smoke, and fury. Just be sure to pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain pulling the levers. I see that you get the entire picture....that there is a lot more to this than just making it more difficult to score a 3-pointer. And I can see why coaches at the "bigger" schools would have lobbied for this change. It was the subject of a lot of basketball conversations at the time it happened. Maybe we'll know over time if it contributed to widening the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots".

As you could see from my post, I wasn't endorsing one or the other. I was just making the point that I can understand why the coach wants to see what he has with both of them, and sees the possibility of playing both of them, depending on the situation and their skills.

Just to be realistic here...and use up some of my lunchtime.... We had our #2 QB get a little playing time last year, before the injury. We also had our #3 QB for about 2/3 of the season. That's a good situation to be in for a coach. Why wouldn't we want to see where they both are at this point? And see what the best situation is to win games? What concerns me about many of the comments I've read on this board is that some of the people who were clamoring for Rodgers to start over Jac are the same people who now feel that his backup is now the clear-cut choice. The truth is, these things take some time to play out. And please drop the "his arm strength appears to be better" factor from the equation. You only need to compare the success of Bernie Kosar vs. Derek Anderson to decide how that affects a guy's ability to make plays. Rodgers gives us some things we really could have used in the last 2/3 of last season, such as his ability to make plays out of nothing, and his downfield running ability. And even though he saw limited action, his completion percentage is the better of the two QBs, and may have improved more with experience. But like some of you, I also do have questions about his poise and decision making. Nicely appeared to be better, mechanically. And his size seems to give him some advantages as a pocket passer. But other than a couple of games we played against bad teams with him at the controls, we struggled to score. And he also threw his share of bonehead passes that were picked, or should have been intercepted. As much as I hate to say it, because I usually feel that it's not the right way to go, I can understand why our coach might be considering a platoon situation to make best use of what he has in these two guys.

It is easy to do. Look at the results. When steroids were eliminated in baseball, home runs visibly dropped. When the 3-point line was moved in college basketball, absolutely nothing happened. Then try to make an argument that lower-level D-1 teams are getting better talent. But, the 3-point line change, with the way it can affect some of your abilities to defend, would not be a benefit to slower, smaller, and less athletic teams.

Please don't forget about the other factors that affect defenses with the movement of the 3 point line. Long range shooters are setting up a little bit further from the basket, and need to be guarded further out from the basket. It can spread the floor, open up entry passing lanes just a little bit more, and can make it more difficult for perimeter defenders to provide help defense on big men who have received the ball close to the basket. I think all of this creates more one-on-one defending, which benefits the team with bigger and quicker players when they are on the offensive end. We could probably never gather enough information to find out how this has actually affected games. But, in practice I certainly don't think the change helps the less talented team with smaller, slower, and "unathletic" players.

If you don't want a kid with grade problems or other red flags, then don't take those kinds of people. It has nothing to do with whether they are a JUCO or a high school kid. Actually, there's several advantages that I don't see come up very often. JUCO players have already had an opportunity to establish themselves academically at the college level, which eliminates some of the risk of grade problems. Plus, they've already established their ability as players, and likely refined some of the skills that may have been deficient when they were 17 yrs. old.

I don't think Racer was making an argument that the 3-point basket has hurt the non-major schools.....just that moving the 3-point line backwards has been a disadvantage. And I would have to agree with that. The "smaller" schools are helped a lot by the 3-point basket, and that is now more difficult to obtain with the movement of the line. Plus, and maybe more importantly, it is forcing defenders to guard people a little further away from the basket, thus giving more opportunities for big and athletic post players to work inside.

I'm sure I've watched thousands of NCAA tournament games in my lifetime. And I would guess that limiting the high seed's scoring has probably played a bigger role in giving low seeds a chance to win the game, as opposed to some stunning offensive scoring performance.

We at least know that just winning games is not good enough. Beyond that, we just don't know. But, I'm not thinking that too many people who have been around our program a long time expect us to get into the NCAA tournament just because we won 20-plus, and had a decent RPI. Just for the sake of this topic, let me assume for a moment that a #21 RPI is not good enough, and we know that to be the case. Then we need a schedule that gives us an opportunity to get higher than that. If not, then the regular season doesn't earn you very much besides a good MAC tournament seeding. And that doesn't seem to mean very much with a #5 and #9 seed winning the MAC tournament the last two years.

How about we work on the things we CAN control (better SOS, RPI), instead of hoping for changes in the minds of those in selection committees, and the instruments they may or may not use to evaluate us.

Dave, You may be right. Who knows if they would have gotten in if their RPI was 10, 20 or 30 points higher. What would have happened if Miami had won a couple more games in 2005? Or, if Ken+ had not won the MAC tournament in 2008? Or, if Akron had won a few more games in 2007? We don't know exactly what it would take. All we know is that it's not happening. But it really doesn't matter. Either way, being Buffalo or Miami in March of 2005 sure beats knowing that you probably have been eliminated from at-large consideration by losing 1 or 2 of your non-conference games in December. The point is....many teams DO have schedules that give them a chance at an at-large bid. We do not.

Here's the challenge. For the last 6 years, the 3 best RPI teams excluded from the NCAA tournament were all non-BCS affiliated schools. No top 50 RPI team from a power conference was left out of the tournament this year, which is the way it usually works. The challenge for a MAC school to get an at-large bid is monumental. It would require actually beating a fair number of high RPI teams, not merely scheduling them. Here are the top 3 schools (RPI) passed over for the past 6 years. Pay special attention to 2005: 2010 -- Rhode Island (40), Wichita State (43), Alabama Birmingham (45) 2009 -- San Diego State (34), Creighton (40), Alabama Birmingham (46) 2008 -- Dayton (32), Illinois State (33), Massachusetts (42) 2007 -- Air Force (30), Missouri State (36), Bradley (38) 2006 -- Missouri State (21), Hofstra (30), Creighton (39) 2005 -- Miami-Ohio (39), Wichita State (45), Buffalo (46) I am. And I see two teams from the MAC who had a chance to get in. It's upsetting to me that we haven't been in that position, after some of our recent 20-plus win seasons. And a stronger SOS can help that.

I think you miss the point. The point isn't "we don't want that second chance" it's "we aren't afforded that second chance". We can play all the tough opponents we want, they stopped giving the MAC schools a second chance. You bring up 2008, look at 2007 and what happened. Everyone (experts included) figured Miami and Akron would be in the tournament. What happened? Prove me wrong, but I believe Ken+'s RPI in 2008 was far better than what we had in 2007. They really had a legitimate chance. Emphasis on the word CHANCE. As in, they did some things to gave themselves at least an opportunity to get into the NCAA by some other mean, if the MAC tourney didn't work out. I think people were surprised that we didn't make the NIT in 2007. But, I don't recall anyone who was surprised we didn't make the NCAA.

I know. I don't get it either. We can sit here and say that all of these SOS and RPI numbers shouldn't mean anything. But in the meantime, we've spent many seasons on the outside looking in at the NCAA tournament participants.

Some of this is just venting frustration, but here goes....... I'm getting more and more weary of the "we won't get more than one bid" argument. Why? Because we've been down that road each of the last 4 years, and got there ONE time. ALL of our teams in those 4 years could have had a chance at an at-large, IF our schedule had only given them a chance. If someone is fine with watching our only NCAA hope vanish with last-second 3 pointers, and the #9 seed going on a hot streak, then you've surely gotten what you asked for. Ken+ had an RPI in the 20s or 30s in 2008. If they had not won the MAC tournament, they had a pretty fair chance of getting in. I just don't understand why anyone on here doesn't want the opportunity to have that 2nd chance.

I guess we can analyze and compare games all we want. But, Utah State's SOS rank was right around 100 this year. With the conference we play in, we'd have to make quite a few OOC adjustments to get to that level. Another note: I sure wish Rhode Island had gotten to the big dance. It would have made me feel a little better about how we stack up against NCAA tournament level competition.

I clearly get what you are saying about the athleticism, and the personnel mismatch.But, as far as I am concerned, it is all about OPPORTUNITY. I don't think any potential upset would benefit us more than beating the team that is covered daily by newspapers and tv stations across the entire state. And until we step on the court and beat them, or pass them in the national rankings, I don't think many of the OSWho bandwagoners are ever going to recognize us as anything other than a good basketball team from a nobody-cares conference. More than once this week, someone said to me, "You're going to the MAC tournament games?". So, I welcome any chance we get to prove something.

Can't is beatable, but for whatever reason, we aren't the team that is set up to do that. But I'm actually happy with ending up with the No. 3 seed. The tourney sets up perfectly for us. Would've been better if NIU would've been able to hold off EMU, but still EMU and CMU is a nice road to the finals. Can't is going to have to dodge two of the No. 3, No. 4 and arguably the No. 5 team in the conference in (Buffalo, Miami and Ohio) just to get to the finals.I also hope the Can't players are as overconfident of a couple of fans I've had to deal with. They think it's a forgone conclusion that the tourney bid is theirs.Thank you. I don't think many people believe that Ken+ is unbeatable. They are just a mismatch for us right now. And Singletary and Evans didn't play a lot of minutes on Friday. Scary. I don't want to have to count on Akron to play a phenomenal game to win a title. OU has the personnel to beat Ken+, and I'll be hoping that happens. If not, I hope Miami or Buffalo can do it.

I like OU against Ken+. I think that's the best chance of the Flushes getting knocked out early. And that would help our chances tremendously.