2010-2011 Men's Basketball Schedule

[MaxZIP]

Posted on gozips.com

2010-11 Akron Men's Basketball Schedule:

Thurs., Nov. 4 - John Carroll (exhibition)

Fri., Nov. 12 - Millikin

Tues., Nov. 16 - at Dayton

Sat., Nov. 20 - Youngstown State

Wed., Nov. 24 - Cleveland State

Wed., Dec. 1 - at Detroit

Sat., Dec. 4 - at Illinois-Chicago

Sun., Dec. 12 - at Temple

Wed., Dec. 15 - at Minnesota

Sat., Dec. 18 - Bethune Cookman

Tues., Dec. 21 - vs. UALR^

Wed., Dec. 22 - vs. Stetson^

Thurs., Dec. 23 - vs. Miami (Fla.)^

Wed., Dec. 29 - Arkansas-Pine Bluff

Mon., Jan. 3 - Oral Roberts

Sat., Jan. 8 - Can't State*

Wed., Jan. 12 - Ohio*

Sun., Jan. 16 - at Buffalo*

Wed., Jan. 19 - at Miami (Ohio)*

Sat., Jan. 22 - Bowling Green*

Wed., Jan. 26 - at Northern Illinois*

Sun., Jan. 30 - Central Michigan*

Wed., Feb. 2 - at Eastern Michigan*

Sat., Feb. 5 - at Toledo*

Wed., Feb. 9 - Western Michigan*

Sat., Feb. 12 - Ball State*

Tues., Feb. 15 - at Bowling Green*

Sat., Feb. 19 - Bracket Buster (TBA)

Wed., Feb. 23 - Miami (Ohio)*

Sat., Feb. 26 - Buffalo*

Wed., Mar. 2 - at Ohio*

Sat., Mar. 5 - at Can't State*

Schedule subject to change

Home games played at Rhodes Arena (5,500)

^-Las Vegas Holiday Hoops Classic, Las Vegas, N.V.

*-Mid-American Conference game

[ZachTheZip]

Fri., Nov. 12 - Millikin

Millikin? Millikin?

[Quickzips]

Out of Conference Opponents final 2010 RPI:

Milliken-D-III

Dayton-36

Youngstown State-269

Cleveland State-157

Detroit-161

Illinois-Chicago-289

Temple-11

Minnesota-63

Bethune Cookman-256

UALR-300

Stetson-326

Miami(FL)-95

Arkansas Pine-Bluff-168

Oral Roberts-130

The Good: Four opponents in the top-100 RPI from the end of last year including two in the top 50. Home games against Cleveland State and Youngstown State should draw well and maybe create a little bit of early season buzz in the area.

The Bad: Scheduling home games against Can't and Ohio during winter break (thank you MAC offices). All of the top OOC games are on the road. Finishing the season with away games at Ohio and Can't.

The Ugly: Continuing to have too many 200-250+ RPI opponents. Stetson(326), UALR(300), UIC(289), Bethune Cookman(256). Even if we pick off some good teams like Temple, Dayton or Minnesota it probably won't end up being enough to give us any chance at an at large bid. Particularly if one of the cupcakes sneaks up and bites us (or even gives us a close game). Whoever the hell came up with Milliken should be fired, if you are going to give us a D-III team or NAIA team or something like that at least make it someone like Malone who might bring some fans with them. You'll be able to hear crickets chirping in the JAR for Milliken.

All in all I guess it isn't a horrible schedule. Definitly had hopes for a little more out of those last few OOC games, but apparently KD isn't quite ready to completely abandon the cupcake row schedules just yet.

[bandzip]

Tues., Nov. 16 - at Dayton

Sat., Nov. 20 - Youngstown State

Wed., Nov. 24 - Cleveland State

Sun., Dec. 12 - at Temple

Wed., Dec. 15 - at Minnesota

Thurs., Dec. 23 - vs. Miami (Fla.)

I like the in-state games a lot. Especially Cleveland State. Even though Temple is up there and made a bit of noise last year they aren't Pitt or someone else that we have absolutely no chance against. Still too many super cupcakes, but definately an improvement.

[GoZips]

The Ugly: Continuing to have too many 200-250+ RPI opponents. Stetson(326), UALR(300), UIC(289), Bethune Cookman(256). Even if we pick off some good teams like Temple, Dayton or Minnesota it probably won't end up being enough to give us any chance at an at large bid. Particularly if one of the cupcakes sneaks up and bites us (or even gives us a close game). Whoever the hell came up with Milliken should be fired, if you are going to give us a D-III team or NAIA team or something like that at least make it someone like Malone who might bring some fans with them. You'll be able to hear crickets chirping in the JAR for Milliken.

... but apparently KD isn't quite ready to completely abandon the cupcake row schedules just yet.

I am continually amazed that people never absorb the content of previous posts.

As recently as last Friday (August 27), the Zips were working to get matching dates with

Michigan State.

The Milliken game is a last second addition. Show me where that school name appears anywhere

in previous posts. Frankly, playing Milliken prior to the Dayton trip is a God send.

If the Zips and the Spartans could have matched up mutually available dates then MSU on the

road would have been Akron's opponent. It was not to be.

As for firing the scheduler, march your arse down to coach Dan Peters office and fess up that

you are volunteering your hinny for the next 365 days to help secure a great, to your

personal standards, 2011-2012 schedule. He'll be happy to see you.

[zipsbandman]

Milliken? Milliken? Surely The University of Phoenix is not far behind. Then again I've heard of The University of Phoenix. Heck why not keep it local and schedule Tri-C? I'm sure they'd bring lots of fans.

[Quickzips]

The Ugly: Continuing to have too many 200-250+ RPI opponents. Stetson(326), UALR(300), UIC(289), Bethune Cookman(256). Even if we pick off some good teams like Temple, Dayton or Minnesota it probably won't end up being enough to give us any chance at an at large bid. Particularly if one of the cupcakes sneaks up and bites us (or even gives us a close game). Whoever the hell came up with Milliken should be fired, if you are going to give us a D-III team or NAIA team or something like that at least make it someone like Malone who might bring some fans with them. You'll be able to hear crickets chirping in the JAR for Milliken.

... but apparently KD isn't quite ready to completely abandon the cupcake row schedules just yet.

I am continually amazed that people never absorb the content of previous posts.

As recently as last Friday (August 27), the Zips were working to get matching dates with

Michigan State.

The Milliken game is a last second addition. Show me where that school name appears anywhere

in previous posts. Frankly, playing Milliken prior to the Dayton trip is a God send.

If the Zips and the Spartans could have matched up mutually available dates then MSU on the

road would have been Akron's opponent. It was not to be.

As for firing the scheduler, march your arse down to coach Dan Peters office and fess up that

you are volunteering your hinny for the next 365 days to help secure a great, to your

personal standards, 2011-2012 schedule. He'll be happy to see you.

Dude, settle down, unbunch your panties and take a chill pill. I actually kind of like the schedule, it is a step in the right direction, but in my honest, on the sideline opinion (that is what this site is for, isn't it?) there is still some work to be done. So Michigan State fell through, fine, I can understand that. But as a last minute fill in I have a hard time believing that there weren't better options out there than a D-III school from Illinois. Sorry, you can try selling me that one all you want, I'm just not buying it.

Quite frankly your continued obsession with Dan Peters job is confounding to me. I've read a lot of your posts over the years and Dan Peters is the only guy you defend to the high heavens like this. This is a fan forum where diehards can come to discuss information that is relevant to Zips athletics, like, say, scheduling? People on this site are constantly scrutinizing and criticizing the decisions of everyone in the athletic department from Tom Wistricill to the coaches to the assistant coaches, the marketing department and beyond. Never once do you step up with these over the top rants defending these other people and telling everyone that if they can do better they should just volunteer their services. The fact of the matter is that none of these people, Dan Peters included is a volunteer. They get paid to perform a service for a public institution in a relatively public role. I, as a member of the public have the right and the ability to scrutinize their work without these over the top lectures from you.

[Captain Kangaroo]

A slight upgrade over last season's schedule. Now we need to win one of the marquee OOC games.

CSU @ home is going to be awesome. It'll be cool to see Gary Waters back in town.

Also good to see the Billikins on the schedule. Rick Majerus has done a nice job resurrecting their program down in Saint Louis and it should be a nice match up (I assume Millikin is a type-o, right?).

[ZachTheZip]

Just win the games you're supposed to. No losses to 3-digit RPI teams. Split Miami/Minnesota and pull off an upset over Temple or Dayton and you're looking at a banner year.

[Dr Z]

Just win the games you're supposed to.

I totally disagree, it's time KD wins a big OOC game!

[ZachTheZip]

Just win the games you're supposed to.

I totally disagree, it's time KD wins a big OOC game!

Maybe we're at the point where we're supposed to win a big OOC game. We should be a better team than Miami and about equal with Minnesota.

[skip-zip]

My frustration in the past several years about our OOC schedule has usually been centered around a lack of opportunities to win games of national significance. Without going back and doing the math, there seems to be an increased amount of those opportunities this coming season (about 4), and that's a good thing.

But, I'd still like to see a lot less of those "absolutely nothing to gain" games, which amount to nothing more than a practice session, and lower our SOS.

I'm slightly encouraged that it appears as if we're doing something to help our national standing, and not just putting together something that helps us achieve another 20 win season that lacks meaningful substance in the eyes of the selection committees.

[Quickzips]

There is some potential in this schedule for an at-large bid, which I think a lot of us look at as one defining factor for a good OOC schedule. We absolutely cannot drop a game against any of the cupcakes, either on the OOC end (Milliken, UIC, Bethune Cookman, UALR, Stetson and YSU) or in the MAC. We might be able to survive dropping a game to Cleveland State, Detroit, Pine-Bluff or Oral Roberts, but probably can't afford to lose more than one. Where we really need to shine are the big 4 games. Dayton, Temple, Minnesota and Miami(FL). We need to win more than one of those (and I would say probably 3 of 4 if all else goes according to plan) to really merit legitimate at-large consideration. Then of course, we can't have major slip-ups in the conference schedule. It is still a pretty big long shot as we would have to go 11-3 or 12-2 in OOC and would likely need to go 13-3 or better in conference. Add in a good draw in the bracketbuster and it is still possible. That is more than you could say about previous OOC schedules, so it is certainly an improvement, but there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room.

[skip-zip]

There is some potential in this schedule for an at-large bid, which I think a lot of us look at as one defining factor for a good OOC schedule. We absolutely cannot drop a game against any of the cupcakes, either on the OOC end (Milliken, UIC, Bethune Cookman, UALR, Stetson and YSU) or in the MAC. We might be able to survive dropping a game to Cleveland State, Detroit, Pine-Bluff or Oral Roberts, but probably can't afford to lose more than one. Where we really need to shine are the big 4 games. Dayton, Temple, Minnesota and Miami(FL). We need to win more than one of those (and I would say probably 3 of 4 if all else goes according to plan) to really merit legitimate at-large consideration. Then of course, we can't have major slip-ups in the conference schedule. It is still a pretty big long shot as we would have to go 11-3 or 12-2 in OOC and would likely need to go 13-3 or better in conference. Add in a good draw in the bracketbuster and it is still possible. That is more than you could say about previous OOC schedules, so it is certainly an improvement, but there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room.

This has been the problem the last few years. With our weak SOS, we were forced to probably be somewhere around 4 to 5 losses....MAX....if we wanted at-large consideration, which is very very difficult to do. One unexpected early loss, and it was pretty much over. At least this schedule give us a CHANCE to get that consideration.

[Dave in Green]

The dreaded "at-large" possibility has been invoked! We shouldn't have to discuss this in too much detail, as all the main points have been covered here pretty thoroughly in the past. We know from at-large history that the odds of any non-tournament-championship MAC team getting an at-large bid are virtually nil.

I'm guessing that it would require an amazing regular season record of no more than 2-3 losses total, and more than 2 upsets of higher-ranked OOC teams to even come close to an at-large bid.

It may be cruel to Zips fans to raise even the slightest hope of an at-large bid because it is so remote. Then again, we all keep hoping for the big breakthrough where the Zips put it all together.

I do think the incoming crop of players combined with the more experienced Zeke and a few other veteran Zips players have the potential to make the team stronger this season. But it would take a huge improvement to make an at-large bid anything more than the dream of winning a multimillion lotto jackpot.

[Quickzips]

Just for comparison sake, here is the 2009-10 Schedule and how our opponents finished in the final 2008-09 RPI.

Austin Peay-146

NC State-110

Drake-171

Howard-329

Arkansas-Pine Bluff-251

Niagra-58

Texas A&M-32

Malone-N/A

UNC Greensboro-316

St. Francis (PA)-322

UIC-166

Valparasio-260

Wyoming-112

Rhode Island-60

Some comparisons with this years schedule:

Highest RPI-Texas A&M(32) vs. Temple(11)

Lowest RPI-St. Francis(322) vs. Stetson (326)

Average RPI- 183 vs. 173

Top 50 RPI- 1 (Texas A&M-32) vs. 2 (Temple-11 & Dayton-36)

Top 100 RPI- 3 (A&M, Niagra-58 & Rhode Island-60) vs. 4 (Temple, Dayton, Minnesota-63 & Miami-95)

Below 250 RPI- 5 (Valparasio, St. Francis, UNC Greensboro, Pine Bluff, Howard) vs. 5 (YSU, UIC, Bethune Cookman, UALR, Stetson)

Below 300 RPI- 3 (St. Francis, Greensboro, Howard) vs. 2 (Stetson, UALR)

Non-DI Teams- 1 (Malone) vs. 1 (Milliken)

On paper I would say this years schedule has seen a modest upgrade at the top, is about the same at the bottom and if anything is slightly worse through the middle tier. Of course, previous season RPI is not always the best indication of where a team will be this year (as an example see UIC who finished 2009 with an RPI of 166 and 2010 with an RPI of 289)

[ZachTheZip]

This has been the problem the last few years. With our weak SOS, we were forced to probably be somewhere around 4 to 5 losses....MAX....if we wanted at-large consideration, which is very very difficult to do. One unexpected early loss, and it was pretty much over. At least this schedule give us a CHANCE to get that consideration.

Even if we played a schedule made by Charlie Coles, 5 losses is about the max you would could have if you want an at-large bid. Mid-major at-large bids are disappearing. They're almost vanished completely.

I think the strength of the MAC has a lot to do with consideration for a bid. We will play 15 OOC games including a Bracketbuster, but a minimum of 17 MAC games (19 if we make the tournament final, and if we don't we probably don't deserve a bid anyway). That means the MAC games count more than the OOC portion of the schedule in terms of RPI. If the weak MAC West teams played horribly weak OOC schedules but racked up winning records, it benefits us more when we play them compared to if they played top-10 OOC schedules but only had 3 or 4 wins because your opponents' records count toward 50% of the RPI formula, but their SOS only counts for 25% (the final 25% is the Win/Loss against said opponent). So it benefits us greatly to play average teams with strong records, such as top teams in low-major conferences regardless of their RPI. Throw in 4 or 5 BCS teams to get an "impressive" win or two and you have the makings of a schedule that will get you a top 50 RPI and some at-large consideration. But that all depends on whether the MAC realizes that weaker teams scheduling far beyond their competitive level hurts the top teams greatly.

[zippyman23]

This has been the problem the last few years. With our weak SOS, we were forced to probably be somewhere around 4 to 5 losses....MAX....if we wanted at-large consideration, which is very very difficult to do. One unexpected early loss, and it was pretty much over. At least this schedule give us a CHANCE to get that consideration.

Even if we played a schedule made by Charlie Coles, 5 losses is about the max you would could have if you want an at-large bid. Mid-major at-large bids are disappearing. They're almost vanished completely.

They're not disappearing. The amount of Non-BCS at-large bids doubled last year, and was the most in 5 years.

[ZachTheZip]

This has been the problem the last few years. With our weak SOS, we were forced to probably be somewhere around 4 to 5 losses....MAX....if we wanted at-large consideration, which is very very difficult to do. One unexpected early loss, and it was pretty much over. At least this schedule give us a CHANCE to get that consideration.

Even if we played a schedule made by Charlie Coles, 5 losses is about the max you would could have if you want an at-large bid. Mid-major at-large bids are disappearing. They're almost vanished completely.

They're not disappearing. The amount of Non-BCS at-large bids doubled last year, and was the most in 5 years.

Who are you counting as a mid-major? C-USA and the MWC aren't mid-majors. Neither is the A-10.

I only see Utah State (WAC) and Gonzaga (WCC) at mid-major at-larges last tournament. That's it. Two.

The number of at-large mid major teams since the 2006 tournament, acording to The Mid-Majority's Red Line:

'06 - 5

'07 - 4

'08 - 3

'09 - 1

'10 - 2

So yeah. We doubled the amount of at-large bids last tournament. Great.

[skip-zip]

This has been the problem the last few years. With our weak SOS, we were forced to probably be somewhere around 4 to 5 losses....MAX....if we wanted at-large consideration, which is very very difficult to do. One unexpected early loss, and it was pretty much over. At least this schedule give us a CHANCE to get that consideration.

Even if we played a schedule made by Charlie Coles, 5 losses is about the max you would could have if you want an at-large bid. Mid-major at-large bids are disappearing. They're almost vanished completely.

They're not disappearing. The amount of Non-BCS at-large bids doubled last year, and was the most in 5 years.

And that's only part of what I have been trying to use to inspire people on here for years. Mid-majors DO get at-large bids...yes. And we should want to be one of thsoe bids, no matter how remote they may seem. But the thing that frustrates me the most is the attitude that we should just give up and stop trying to get an at-large bid.

What would that accomplish? The goal every year is to get to the NCAA tournament. And it IS tough to qualify, and it SHOULD be. It's the tournament to decide the best team in college basketball.

There is no alternative. We do what we need to do to have an opportunity to qualify, or we sit at home every April watching other teams play besides ourselves. It's that simple.

[Dave in Green]

Being realistic about an at-large bid is not the same as giving up. Realistically, the MAC is not a powerhouse basketball conference, but square in the middle of the pack of all D1 conferences. Realistically, it's immensely easier for a MAC team to win its conference tournament than to earn an at-large bid, which requires beating OOC teams that are stronger than MAC teams. Realistically, it's purely logical to have a primary focus on winning the MAC tournament and consider an at-large bid as an extreme longshot backup. Doesn't mean you give up, just that you realistically prioritize.

Either goal -- consistently winning the MAC tournament or consistently having an OOC record worthy of at-large bid consideration -- requires that the Zips improve from where they've been, and we're all in favor of that. Every season the Zips should start with the attitude that they are capable of knocking off higher-rated teams, and go out and execute to the best of their abilities. Realistically, we all know that the Zips have not yet proven that they are at that level yet, and still have a ways to go to even dream of an at-large bid. But they have consistently demonstrated in recent years that they are a serious threat to reach the MAC tournament championship game with a reasonable chance to win it.

Bottom line is that if the Zips continue to improve, get stronger, and rack up more wins every year, they'll have a better chance at both winning the MAC tournament and being at least remotely considered for an at-large bid. Realistically, the odds of one are orders of magnitude better than the other.

[zippyman23]

Being realistic about an at-large bid is not the same as giving up. Realistically, the MAC is not a powerhouse basketball conference, but square in the middle of the pack of all D1 conferences. Realistically, it's immensely easier for a MAC team to win its conference tournament than to earn an at-large bid, which requires beating OOC teams that are stronger than MAC teams. Realistically, it's purely logical to have a primary focus on winning the MAC tournament and consider an at-large bid as an extreme longshot backup. Doesn't mean you give up, just that you realistically prioritize.

There's no need to prioritize, but if you do, you would put the at-large bid first. Schedule for an at-large and hope you pick some big wins. If not, the MAC tourney will always be there.

[skip-zip]

Being realistic about an at-large bid is not the same as giving up. Realistically, the MAC is not a powerhouse basketball conference, but square in the middle of the pack of all D1 conferences. Realistically, it's immensely easier for a MAC team to win its conference tournament than to earn an at-large bid, which requires beating OOC teams that are stronger than MAC teams. Realistically, it's purely logical to have a primary focus on winning the MAC tournament and consider an at-large bid as an extreme longshot backup. Doesn't mean you give up, just that you realistically prioritize.

There's no need to prioritize, but if you do, you would put the at-large bid first. Schedule for an at-large and hope you pick some big wins. If not, the MAC tourney will always be there.

Exactly!! Why isn't the MAC tournament title the "backup" option? And we would naturally be better prepared for the MAC tournament by playing a schedule that really challenges our team. So, we increase our chances of success, with BOTH options, by playing a more difficult schedule.

Dave, I love your posts, and respect your opinions. But after 1 MAC tournament title in nearly 20 years as a MAC member, and with the knowledge that everything has to fall your way in a 4-day tournament, I have to question whether the MAC tournament title can really be called "the easy option".

[zippyman23]

Who are you counting as a mid-major? C-USA and the MWC aren't mid-majors. Neither is the A-10.

I only see Utah State (WAC) and Gonzaga (WCC) at mid-major at-larges last tournament. That's it. Two.

The number of at-large mid major teams since the 2006 tournament, acording to The Mid-Majority's Red Line:

'06 - 5

'07 - 4

'08 - 3

'09 - 1

'10 - 2

So yeah. We doubled the amount of at-large bids last tournament. Great.

I did say Non-BCS. But anyways, nothing is vanishing, "mid-majors" aren't doing enough to get in like they were before. If they do, they will get in.

[Dave in Green]

Scheduling a more difficult OOC schedule and winning more of those more difficult games is easier than winning the MAC tournament? I think that one needs to be reconsidered a little more carefully.

How many times over the last 20 years were the Zips realistically close to an at-large bid versus how many times were they realistically close to winning the MAC championship and automatic bid?

In any case, I'm not thinking in terms of 20 years ago, or 15, or 10. I'm thinking in terms of the last 5 or so years, and the direction that KD has taken the team. The Zips have gone from a mediocre team to a genuine threat to win the MAC championship and NCAA bid every year. If that progress continues, the Zips will also increase their odds of getting an at-large bid. We all want that progress to continue.

I'm not debating that a weaker schedule is better than a stronger schedule. A stronger schedule resulting in more losses might make the Zips a better team for the MAC tournament. But they'd actually have to win some of those more difficult OOC games to raise their chances of an at-large bid. All I'm saying is that the Zips are currently very close to consistently having a realistic chance to win the MAC tournament every year, and very far from having a realistic chance to get an at-large bid every year.

My point is that if the Zips continue to get stronger, their odds of winning the MAC tournament or getting an at-large bid will both improve. But the odds of winning the MAC tournament have been, are, and will continue to be much better than getting an at-large bid from the NCAA.