2010/2011 Basketball schedule

[Captain Kangaroo]

As the NCAA continues to phase-out the likelihood of at-large NCAA tourney bids for midmajors, does the "Bracketbuster" name need to be changed? "NIT Buster?""Non-BCS Bitch Slap Prelims?""February False-hope Extravaganza?"Five years ago it was truly an NCAA Bracketbuster in name and in actuality. It was a good way of separating weak conference pretenders with gaudy records from from "real" mid-majors who could run with the Big Dogs. It isn't any longer.I love the Bracketbuster because it has given us 4 games with Nevada and VCU. If not for the Bracketbuster, we'd have played lesser opponents. That is a fact. And we wouldn't be on TV. The Bracketbuster is great for the Zips program, and for Zips fans. But it ain't helping us get into the NCAA tourney.My soap box comment of the day - Look for the local print, radio and blog media to pick up on this topic...and not give ZipsNation credit for the angle. I get tired of that. ZN always provides story links to various traditional media sites. It is almost unheard of that we get any credit when the scenario is reversed.

[deacon33]

I think this change in scheduling philosophy may be a good thing. I really don't think we need to schedule any more than one more bigger name opponent. The problem in my opinion has been too many teams on the schedule that end up with RPIs around 280 or worse. I'm not saying we should never play schools at the bottom of D-1 but we shouldn't play 3 to 5 of them in the same season. I'd like to see more teams that are average to good teams in decent mid-major conferences or teams that are at or very near the top in the bottom conferences.The Las vegas tournament next year sounds intriguing. I'd have to think UNLV would be involved in that event too.

Id like to see gonzaga on the schedule............ so we can get a lil payback.

What are you talking about? I feel the idea is to play teams that we have the chance of beating and bolstering our schedule. We are not at Gonzaga's level. This year we are not even at Rhode Islands level. Gonzaga would not even take the call from Akron if we tried to schedule them. Gonzaga is looking to play schools in the NW for recruiting purposes, or top 20 schools to keep their RPI high because of their weak league. Lets get out of Fantasy Land

[Quickzips]

I think this change in scheduling philosophy may be a good thing. I really don't think we need to schedule any more than one more bigger name opponent. The problem in my opinion has been too many teams on the schedule that end up with RPIs around 280 or worse. I'm not saying we should never play schools at the bottom of D-1 but we shouldn't play 3 to 5 of them in the same season. I'd like to see more teams that are average to good teams in decent mid-major conferences or teams that are at or very near the top in the bottom conferences.The Las vegas tournament next year sounds intriguing. I'd have to think UNLV would be involved in that event too.

Id like to see gonzaga on the schedule............ so we can get a lil payback.

What are you talking about? I feel the idea is to play teams that we have the chance of beating and bolstering our schedule. We are not at Gonzaga's level. This year we are not even at Rhode Islands level. Gonzaga would not even take the call from Akron if we tried to schedule them. Gonzaga is looking to play schools in the NW for recruiting purposes, or top 20 schools to keep their RPI high because of their weak league. Lets get out of Fantasy Land

Gotta disagree here. If the goal, as you state it, is to play teams that we have the chance of beating and bolstering our schedule, then Gonzaga and Rhode Island are exactly the teams we should be scheduling. We have shown over the last year that we can play nose to nose with each of those teams. If we stop crapping down our legs when the pressure is on then we do have a chance at beating those teams, and they are certainly schedule boosters. Now if you argument is that we should play teams that we are assured of beating, then no, don't schedule the Gonzagas and the Rhode Islands. Now whether or not Gonzaga would actually schedule us, that is a different question all together. I agree there, that we probably aren't all that exciting an option for them.

[OZoner]

NCAA phasing out the likelihood of mid-majors getting at-larges? That's news to me.I like getting Oral Roberts at home. Is that a 1-for-1?

[ZachTheZip]

NCAA phasing out the likelihood of mid-majors getting at-larges? That's news to me.I like getting Oral Roberts at home. Is that a 1-for-1?

Is it? Take a look at the number of mid-major at-large bids in the tournament over the past decade. It goes down every year.

[Captain Kangaroo]

NCAA phasing out the likelihood of mid-majors getting at-larges? That's news to me.

Here's some reading material for you

[deacon33]

I think this change in scheduling philosophy may be a good thing. I really don't think we need to schedule any more than one more bigger name opponent. The problem in my opinion has been too many teams on the schedule that end up with RPIs around 280 or worse. I'm not saying we should never play schools at the bottom of D-1 but we shouldn't play 3 to 5 of them in the same season. I'd like to see more teams that are average to good teams in decent mid-major conferences or teams that are at or very near the top in the bottom conferences.The Las vegas tournament next year sounds intriguing. I'd have to think UNLV would be involved in that event too.

Id like to see gonzaga on the schedule............ so we can get a lil payback.

What are you talking about? I feel the idea is to play teams that we have the chance of beating and bolstering our schedule. We are not at Gonzaga's level. This year we are not even at Rhode Islands level. Gonzaga would not even take the call from Akron if we tried to schedule them. Gonzaga is looking to play schools in the NW for recruiting purposes, or top 20 schools to keep their RPI high because of their weak league. Lets get out of Fantasy Land

Gotta disagree here. If the goal, as you state it, is to play teams that we have the chance of beating and bolstering our schedule, then Gonzaga and Rhode Island are exactly the teams we should be scheduling. We have shown over the last year that we can play nose to nose with each of those teams. If we stop crapping down our legs when the pressure is on then we do have a chance at beating those teams, and they are certainly schedule boosters. Now if you argument is that we should play teams that we are assured of beating, then no, don't schedule the Gonzagas and the Rhode Islands. Now whether or not Gonzaga would actually schedule us, that is a different question all together. I agree there, that we probably aren't all that exciting an option for them.

I am going to say that if we played Gonzaga 10 times we might be able to win 2. The key word is might.... I feel Rhode Island is the correct schedule, Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. We need to schedule A10 teams like UMass, St. Joes... Mo Valley teams like Witch St, Evansville... these teams are names that the Basketball community knows and hold a good chance for Akron to come out victors. Gonzaga, as much as we wish we were like them, or on their level, we are way behind them in level of play, and in the Tournament Selectors eyes.

[OZoner]

NCAA phasing out the likelihood of mid-majors getting at-larges? That's news to me.

Here's some reading material for you

I'm sorry, but this does nothing to suggest anything of a concerted effort by the NCAA to keep mid-majors out. At best, it's tautology. Mid-majors aren't there because the NCAA doesn't want them; the NCAA doesn't want them, so they're not there. Because the number of bids has been going down is proof of nothing. What about when the numbers were going up? Doesn't this decline match the NBA's age rule? Think that might be a reason?Fact of the matter is, the at-large pool was weak last year. The teams cited in that article all had huge holes in their resume.People want to blame The Man instead of looking in the mirror.Here's a good piece about the at-large process. You tell me if there's room for collusion.

[MDZip]

NCAA phasing out the likelihood of mid-majors getting at-larges? That's news to me.

Here's some reading material for you

I'm sorry, but this does nothing to suggest anything of a concerted effort by the NCAA to keep mid-majors out. At best, it's tautology. Mid-majors aren't there because the NCAA doesn't want them; the NCAA doesn't want them, so they're not there. Because the number of bids has been going down is proof of nothing. What about when the numbers were going up? Doesn't this decline match the NBA's age rule? Think that might be a reason?Fact of the matter is, the at-large pool was weak last year. The teams cited in that article all had huge holes in their resume.People want to blame The Man instead of looking in the mirror.Here's a good piece about the at-large process. You tell me if there's room for collusion.

One of the most interesting parts of that article:One thing that really struck me was up in the top left corner, the first thing a committee member sees when scanning one of these. There's average RPI win and average RPI loss. That's not something that you can find on any website, is it? (Don't worry, we're on it this weekend.) SJU's average win of 170 makes its profile look a whole lot less impressive.That's where I think the Zips get into the most trouble. Quite frankly, their best RPI wins are likely to come in conference. That's not going to do much to impress the committee. Their RPI losses would look pretty good, but that doesn't help you much, I wouldn't think.And another one for the Zips to consider:One thing that the NCAA staffers and Slive built immediate consensus on was that the "20-win season" has become completely meaningless.

[Dave in Green]

..... Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. .....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "majority lead," but the play-by-play of the Zips-Zags game (link below) shows that the Zips were never more than 4 points behind until 8:15 was left in the game.The Zips led the Zags from 6:40 remaining in the first half to 13:15 remaining in the second half, or 13:25, and a couple of times after that, as well.In the 10 minutes between 16:54 remaining in the first half and 6:40 remaining in the first half, the Zips pulled ahead of the Zags 6 different times.Only in the last 9 minutes of the game did the Zags clearly outplay the Zips. For the other 31 minutes, the Zips were either leading, tied, or within 4 points.Zips-Zags Play-By-Play

[GP1]

Home:Cleveland StateOral RobertsWyomingReturn trip from this years bracketbusterAway:OaklandTempleUICNiagraNeutral:Miami(FL)Indiana St.

This schedule isn't that bad. ORU has made the NCAA Tournament several times. Wyoming is in and out of being good, but they can be good. CSU will be a great game. Temple is a nice pick up. Miami is a good team. There are nine games listed above. Get 5 more and round out the schedule with one cupcake, two more like Niagra and two ATM games....the Athletic Department could use the money.

[Quickzips]

Home:Cleveland StateOral RobertsWyomingReturn trip from this years bracketbusterAway:OaklandTempleUICNiagraNeutral:Miami(FL)Indiana St.

This schedule isn't that bad. ORU has made the NCAA Tournament several times. Wyoming is in and out of being good, but they can be good. CSU will be a great game. Temple is a nice pick up. Miami is a good team. There are nine games listed above. Get 5 more and round out the schedule with one cupcake, two more like Niagra and two ATM games....the Athletic Department could use the money.

Like I've said before, the last 4 open spots on this schedule will make or break it. If we follow our trend and 2 or 3 of those 4 spots are cupcake D-III schools the schedule will be no better than last year. If we actually try to challenge ourselves with a high major conference opponent or two and a couple quality mid-majors and this schedule will be just fine. It all comes down to those last 4 games. This is a decent foundation, now we have to figure out what we are putting on top of it.

[OZoner]

NCAA phasing out the likelihood of mid-majors getting at-larges? That's news to me.

Here's some reading material for you

I'm sorry, but this does nothing to suggest anything of a concerted effort by the NCAA to keep mid-majors out. At best, it's tautology. Mid-majors aren't there because the NCAA doesn't want them; the NCAA doesn't want them, so they're not there. Because the number of bids has been going down is proof of nothing. What about when the numbers were going up? Doesn't this decline match the NBA's age rule? Think that might be a reason?Fact of the matter is, the at-large pool was weak last year. The teams cited in that article all had huge holes in their resume.People want to blame The Man instead of looking in the mirror.Here's a good piece about the at-large process. You tell me if there's room for collusion.

One of the most interesting parts of that article:One thing that really struck me was up in the top left corner, the first thing a committee member sees when scanning one of these. There's average RPI win and average RPI loss. That's not something that you can find on any website, is it? (Don't worry, we're on it this weekend.) SJU's average win of 170 makes its profile look a whole lot less impressive.

Basketball State has it.

[deacon33]

..... Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. .....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "majority lead," but the play-by-play of the Zips-Zags game (link below) shows that the Zips were never more than 4 points behind until 8:15 was left in the game.The Zips led the Zags from 6:40 remaining in the first half to 13:15 remaining in the second half, or 13:25, and a couple of times after that, as well.In the 10 minutes between 16:54 remaining in the first half and 6:40 remaining in the first half, the Zips pulled ahead of the Zags 6 different times.Only in the last 9 minutes of the game did the Zags clearly outplay the Zips. For the other 31 minutes, the Zips were either leading, tied, or within 4 points.Zips-Zags Play-By-Play

So in all of those stats do you see a major lead for Akron. I do not. A lead by 4 points is clearly not insurmountable. You can tell yourself whatever you like but gonzaga was never in clear danger of losing that game. Gonzaga played almost everyone on their bench while Akron was in their normal rotation the whole game. As it looked to me was that Mark Few was conserving as much as he could knowing that Gonzaga was going to play more games. Keep thinking that Akron is at Gonzaga's level, and that is why Akron is laughed at outside this ring of nonsense.

[Jalapeño Zippy]

..... Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. .....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "majority lead," but the play-by-play of the Zips-Zags game (link below) shows that the Zips were never more than 4 points behind until 8:15 was left in the game.The Zips led the Zags from 6:40 remaining in the first half to 13:15 remaining in the second half, or 13:25, and a couple of times after that, as well.In the 10 minutes between 16:54 remaining in the first half and 6:40 remaining in the first half, the Zips pulled ahead of the Zags 6 different times.Only in the last 9 minutes of the game did the Zags clearly outplay the Zips. For the other 31 minutes, the Zips were either leading, tied, or within 4 points.Zips-Zags Play-By-Play

So in all of those stats do you see a major lead for Akron. I do not. A lead by 4 points is clearly not insurmountable. You can tell yourself whatever you like but gonzaga was never in clear danger of losing that game. Gonzaga played almost everyone on their bench while Akron was in their normal rotation the whole game. As it looked to me was that Mark Few was conserving as much as he could knowing that Gonzaga was going to play more games. Keep thinking that Akron is at Gonzaga's level, and that is why Akron is laughed at outside this ring of nonsense.

It only takes one point to win and I guarantee you that no coach would conserve in a lose and go home tournament.

[Hilltopper]

..... Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. .....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "majority lead," but the play-by-play of the Zips-Zags game (link below) shows that the Zips were never more than 4 points behind until 8:15 was left in the game.The Zips led the Zags from 6:40 remaining in the first half to 13:15 remaining in the second half, or 13:25, and a couple of times after that, as well.In the 10 minutes between 16:54 remaining in the first half and 6:40 remaining in the first half, the Zips pulled ahead of the Zags 6 different times.Only in the last 9 minutes of the game did the Zags clearly outplay the Zips. For the other 31 minutes, the Zips were either leading, tied, or within 4 points.Zips-Zags Play-By-Play

So in all of those stats do you see a major lead for Akron. I do not. A lead by 4 points is clearly not insurmountable. You can tell yourself whatever you like but gonzaga was never in clear danger of losing that game. Gonzaga played almost everyone on their bench while Akron was in their normal rotation the whole game. As it looked to me was that Mark Few was conserving as much as he could knowing that Gonzaga was going to play more games. Keep thinking that Akron is at Gonzaga's level, and that is why Akron is laughed at outside this ring of nonsense.

Dave and I were actually at the Rose Garden that afternoon for the Gonzaga game. Standing in line at the concession stand during halftime, I assure you that the Zags fans were quite worried about the outcome of the game. No one was laughing at the Zips.

[deacon33]

..... Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. .....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "majority lead," but the play-by-play of the Zips-Zags game (link below) shows that the Zips were never more than 4 points behind until 8:15 was left in the game.The Zips led the Zags from 6:40 remaining in the first half to 13:15 remaining in the second half, or 13:25, and a couple of times after that, as well.In the 10 minutes between 16:54 remaining in the first half and 6:40 remaining in the first half, the Zips pulled ahead of the Zags 6 different times.Only in the last 9 minutes of the game did the Zags clearly outplay the Zips. For the other 31 minutes, the Zips were either leading, tied, or within 4 points.Zips-Zags Play-By-Play

So in all of those stats do you see a major lead for Akron. I do not. A lead by 4 points is clearly not insurmountable. You can tell yourself whatever you like but gonzaga was never in clear danger of losing that game. Gonzaga played almost everyone on their bench while Akron was in their normal rotation the whole game. As it looked to me was that Mark Few was conserving as much as he could knowing that Gonzaga was going to play more games. Keep thinking that Akron is at Gonzaga's level, and that is why Akron is laughed at outside this ring of nonsense.

Dave and I were actually at the Rose Garden that afternoon for the Gonzaga game. Standing in line at the concession stand during halftime, I assure you that the Zags fans were quite worried about the outcome of the game. No one was laughing at the Zips.

Well me, my dad, and Andy were there, and Mark Few was not worried. Tell Dave that for me.

[Hilltopper]

..... Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. .....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "majority lead," but the play-by-play of the Zips-Zags game (link below) shows that the Zips were never more than 4 points behind until 8:15 was left in the game.The Zips led the Zags from 6:40 remaining in the first half to 13:15 remaining in the second half, or 13:25, and a couple of times after that, as well.In the 10 minutes between 16:54 remaining in the first half and 6:40 remaining in the first half, the Zips pulled ahead of the Zags 6 different times.Only in the last 9 minutes of the game did the Zags clearly outplay the Zips. For the other 31 minutes, the Zips were either leading, tied, or within 4 points.Zips-Zags Play-By-Play

So in all of those stats do you see a major lead for Akron. I do not. A lead by 4 points is clearly not insurmountable. You can tell yourself whatever you like but gonzaga was never in clear danger of losing that game. Gonzaga played almost everyone on their bench while Akron was in their normal rotation the whole game. As it looked to me was that Mark Few was conserving as much as he could knowing that Gonzaga was going to play more games. Keep thinking that Akron is at Gonzaga's level, and that is why Akron is laughed at outside this ring of nonsense.

Dave and I were actually at the Rose Garden that afternoon for the Gonzaga game. Standing in line at the concession stand during halftime, I assure you that the Zags fans were quite worried about the outcome of the game. No one was laughing at the Zips.

Well me, my dad, and Andy were there, and Mark Few was not worried. Tell Dave that for me.

So you saw Mark few laughing at the Zips? Why do you feel it's neccesary to tear down the Basketball program?

[deacon33]

..... Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. .....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "majority lead," but the play-by-play of the Zips-Zags game (link below) shows that the Zips were never more than 4 points behind until 8:15 was left in the game.The Zips led the Zags from 6:40 remaining in the first half to 13:15 remaining in the second half, or 13:25, and a couple of times after that, as well.In the 10 minutes between 16:54 remaining in the first half and 6:40 remaining in the first half, the Zips pulled ahead of the Zags 6 different times.Only in the last 9 minutes of the game did the Zags clearly outplay the Zips. For the other 31 minutes, the Zips were either leading, tied, or within 4 points.Zips-Zags Play-By-Play

So in all of those stats do you see a major lead for Akron. I do not. A lead by 4 points is clearly not insurmountable. You can tell yourself whatever you like but gonzaga was never in clear danger of losing that game. Gonzaga played almost everyone on their bench while Akron was in their normal rotation the whole game. As it looked to me was that Mark Few was conserving as much as he could knowing that Gonzaga was going to play more games. Keep thinking that Akron is at Gonzaga's level, and that is why Akron is laughed at outside this ring of nonsense.

Dave and I were actually at the Rose Garden that afternoon for the Gonzaga game. Standing in line at the concession stand during halftime, I assure you that the Zags fans were quite worried about the outcome of the game. No one was laughing at the Zips.

Well me, my dad, and Andy were there, and Mark Few was not worried. Tell Dave that for me.

So you saw Mark few laughing at the Zips? Why do you feel it's neccesary to tear down the Basketball program? I'm sorry that the new AD fired your best buddy on the football team, get over it.

I have no idea what you are talking about? Do you know what you are talking about?

[zippyman23]

So in all of those stats do you see a major lead for Akron. I do not. A lead by 4 points is clearly not insurmountable. You can tell yourself whatever you like but gonzaga was never in clear danger of losing that game. Gonzaga played almost everyone on their bench while Akron was in their normal rotation the whole game. As it looked to me was that Mark Few was conserving as much as he could knowing that Gonzaga was going to play more games. Keep thinking that Akron is at Gonzaga's level, and that is why Akron is laughed at outside this ring of nonsense.

Nobody here has said that Akron is on Gonzaga's level, it's really only you that keeps bringing it up. All that was originally said was some would like to play Gonzaga home/home. That's not saying Akron and Gonzaga on the same level. It's only your notion that Akron should only play teams that are on the same level, which is downright foolish. I agree Gonzaga wouldn't do a home/home with us, but for arguments sake, if they were to offer us a home/home you don't even need to think about. You do it in a heartbeat. Gonzaga didn't get to their level by beating teams similar to them. They got there by playing and beating teams that were quite frankily on other level from them at the time. That's how you grow the program.

[Dave in Green]

Rugby, we're all free to have our own interpretations of the world and all of its many parts. The statistical component of the Zips-Zags game is pure math, but we can also imagine our own scenarios about hidden stories behind the numbers.No one has claimed that the Zips are at the same level as the Zags. But cold, statistical reality is that the Zips played high level basketball on an even basis with the Zags for about 75% of an NCAA tournament game.If you thought the Zips didn't belong on the same court as the Zags, it would have been really kind and thoughtful of you to have volunteered to stay home and offer your ticket to someone who did believe the Zips had at least a small chance to pull off the big upset.

[ZachTheZip]

The Zags won't schedule us. Most of the teams that people want to see Akron play won't schedule us, even as a buy-game.

[BirdZip]

..... Gonzaga is above and beyond Akron. They beat us by 13 last year and I felt is was not that close. Akron never held a majority lead in the game and could not compete with Gonzaga's length. .....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "majority lead," but the play-by-play of the Zips-Zags game (link below) shows that the Zips were never more than 4 points behind until 8:15 was left in the game.The Zips led the Zags from 6:40 remaining in the first half to 13:15 remaining in the second half, or 13:25, and a couple of times after that, as well.In the 10 minutes between 16:54 remaining in the first half and 6:40 remaining in the first half, the Zips pulled ahead of the Zags 6 different times.Only in the last 9 minutes of the game did the Zags clearly outplay the Zips. For the other 31 minutes, the Zips were either leading, tied, or within 4 points.Zips-Zags Play-By-Play

So in all of those stats do you see a major lead for Akron. I do not. A lead by 4 points is clearly not insurmountable. You can tell yourself whatever you like but gonzaga was never in clear danger of losing that game. Gonzaga played almost everyone on their bench while Akron was in their normal rotation the whole game. As it looked to me was that Mark Few was conserving as much as he could knowing that Gonzaga was going to play more games. Keep thinking that Akron is at Gonzaga's level, and that is why Akron is laughed at outside this ring of nonsense.

Dave and I were actually at the Rose Garden that afternoon for the Gonzaga game. Standing in line at the concession stand during halftime, I assure you that the Zags fans were quite worried about the outcome of the game. No one was laughing at the Zips.

Well me, my dad, and Andy were there, and Mark Few was not worried. Tell Dave that for me.

So you saw Mark few laughing at the Zips? Why do you feel it's neccesary to tear down the Basketball program? I'm sorry that the new AD fired your best buddy on the football team, get over it.

I have no idea what you are talking about? Do you know what you are talking about?

I think what he is probably talking about is that, out of your ~20 posts so far on ZN, at least 12 have been negative, including several personal shots at KD. Another 3 were negative toward other ZN posters. Of the 4 I would rate positive, 3 were positive toward Dan Hipsher in what I would interpret either as a bad joke or a shot against KD. Sounds like a troll to me.And if you went to Portland and never thought Akron was threatening Gonzaga, not only did you waste your money, but you might want to limit your posts here on ZN to non-basketball topics.