Quote from: tigersports on February 27, 2006, 12:37:46 AM
Sagecock, two key results:  Oxy beat Amherst, which rolled PP and Oxy split with CMS, which swept PP.  Plus, PP did lose to Whittier down the stretch while Oxy's last two losses were on the road to CMS and PP down the stretch.  Thus, Oxy's two bad losses in conference are offset by PP's one and the aforementioned results.  Oxy beat two tourney teams, PP one.

I was referring more to momentum then anything else.  I still beleive a surging PP team is just as qualified as a slumping Oxy squad.  You say that the two bad losses are comparable to PP's singular loss, however, that ignores the fact that they both came at the end of the season when they would have counted the most.  I realize the same argument can be made about the Hen's loss to Whittier, but instead of bouncing back from the loss to Laverne the Tigers dropped 3 straight after beating Cal-Lu.  I don't think you can equate the two at all.

QuoteLast, even setting officiating aside, PP got every break imaginable in the game against Oxy on Feb. 20 (Knowles' bounce on the front rim for 3, the bounce on Porter's FT, not to mention a 2+ standard deviations from the norm 20-24 from the line).  If you're gonna take a team from the SCIAC, the choice, by a preponderance, was Oxy.

That's why they play the game.  Same could be said for the first game when Oxy beat PP.  Oxy may have been the clear pick at the begining ofthe season but with their current level of play I don't think it should be so obvious.

Now I understand that Oxy had the overall record and the win over Amherst, but they also finished the season on a 4-game losing streak compared to the Hens 4-game win streak (of which Oxy was involved).  It's great that the SCIAC got some love with two teams, but I can't help but think that a rolling PP team should have been given some consideration over a tanking Oxy squad.  The fact that Whitworth got overlooked as well is also a shame considering their overall record is just as strong (20-7 to 19-5) and the only difference between them and Oxy/UPS is 1-point. 

Quotetoo bad for the rest of the conference and lucky for the Hen nation, who all understand that CK has easily been the greatest coach ever at PP.

I think Gregg Popovich might have something to say about that...

So the Hens finish out with a win at Redlands, never dominated the way they did the first game, but won convincingly enough.  Great to send off the seniors with a win. 

Quoteg.   Redlands W against Oxy unfortunately for all of us probably will keeps the system in tact.  Can someone please tell me why Coach Smith has Wooden status out there?

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with hime being the AD, I imagine a conversation like this occuring at the end of this season:

AD Smith: Coach, we need to make a change at the top.  Somthing is just not working with this system.
Coach Smith:  I disagree, did you see that you beat Oxy?
AD Smith:  That was pretty impressive...
Coach Smith:  You can say that again, Maziari is unreal!  Why if I could get in another 4 players like him we'd be SCIAC champs!
AD SMith:  Jesus, you're right!  Welcome back for another year Coach.

tigersports:  Karma being what it may, there were questionable calls in both Oxy-PP games...I've been on the end of great SCIAC officiating myself, so I say, forget playing the "well if this had happened..." game and lets just agree that SCAIC officiating is less than terrific

WestCoast:  As far as the balance of power shifting across 6th, I'd say it will definitely be interesting next year.  Hens return Knowles (best PG in the league), Porter, Haydir and Jabari Reynolds.  Reynolds didn't contribute as much as he should have this year to issues outside of his control, but look for him to provide some offensive spark that the Hens were missing this year.  True the stags get Maciera and 4 other substantial contributers back, but they lose Parsons and Taylor, two HUGE contributers.  If anything, I'd argue that next year is entirely up for grabs.

I'll be out at the Redlands-PP game on Thursday along with 30 other Pomona rowdies...hopefully we can send a great senior class out with a win.

Following saturday's PP-CLU game I'm glad to report that Cal Lu's fans remain some of the classiest in the SCIAC.  Improving upon their inventive "you are gay" chant began during the Oxy game, Cal Lu's fans took a page from another religious institution and began chanting "Brokeback Mountain" at Pomona's Tom Hollo while he was shooting freethrows.  It's reassuring to know that Cal Lu fans are watching the news and staying abrest of current social debates.

http://www.kirotv.com/sports/7011667/detail.html?rss=sea&psp=sports

As always, you stay classy Cal Lu

p.s.  Looking foward to the Oxy-PP game tommorow night, hopefully the Hens can bring it and pull down a 2nd place finish for this season

Laverne will be hosting home games I'd assume for the rest of the season (PP will be there this wednesday for sure...that or the players have been misled)

And really, all the "you are ugly" chant demonstrates is a fundemental lack of creativity.  As top academic schools SCIAC fans should really come better prepared then that. 

After watching the Cal Tech-PP game I've got nothing but love for those Techers.  Having missed them last season due to being abroad, it was great seeing them field a team with actual athleticism, or as there website puts it:

"Caltech has always had a fine intercollegiate player, perhaps two, on the roster but never a plethora of riches in talent with formal interscholastic basketball background"

I'm suprised that they havn't won a game this year, if only due to the fact that someone HAS to have a bad game sometime.  All the luck to the Beavers finishing SCIAC...who knows, maybe they'll take someone out this year...

Quote from: dj_hyphen on February 06, 2006, 08:44:04 PM
@ believing the numbers that are put in the box score for attendence...those are NEVER accurate in SCIAC play...hopefully CMS has more people at games these days than I remember, but the fan support there (in terms of numbers) has traditionally been pretty average.  No diss Stagfan, just a fact.  This year, you guys are in the driver's seat though, so get the word out on campus and make sure everyone's behind the squad.


I'll be attending the PP/Cal Tech game on Wednesday and the big rivalry game on Saturday vs. CMS.  I expect my PP boys to come out amped up and it to be a great game...can't wait.  Who else will be in the building?

I'll definitely be at the Cal Tech game, though I will not be my normal dynamic self given that heckling Cal Tech is akin to fixing the Special Olympics in terms of moral validity.

Quick note on CMS/PP attendence, if any SCIAC school claims that a third of their student body (outside of rivalry games, i.e PP-CMS, PP-Oxy, etc..) showed up to a game they are clearly lying.  I know what 500 people look like, and it is not the 12 drunk guys in the first row.

Quote from: WestCoastWhiner on February 02, 2006, 04:19:26 PM
OxyB, your comment suggests that you buy the line that a liberal arts school has to lower its standards to compete nationally.  That excuse is nothing more than a subterfuge for deeper institutional issues.  Nobody else in DIII accepts it and you shouldn't either.  Williams, Wooster & Amherst are all higher ranked than Oxy and have a commitment to elite athletic programs.

I don't think you can dismiss the notion of standards entirely fromt eh picture however.  While there certainly are elite academic institutions that also have elite level athletic programs, there are only a limited number of athletes who can meet those standards.  Amherst and Williams do an excellent job of attracting many of those athletes, however, they have some advantages over SCIAC schools such as slots.  If you can guarentee a kid he's going to be admitted a week before that kid will hear from a SCIAC school it makes for a pretty tough decision.

I will admit there is a fundemental lack of committment to athletics at many of the SCIAC schools, however, I honestly the academic component plays a far greater role then you're giving it credit for.  Anecdotal evidence: Colin McNeil and Derek Turbin's first choice?  Pomona.  Did either one of them get in?  No.  Academics make a difference, to claim otherwise is ignoring the evidence.

Quote from: OxyBob on January 30, 2006, 01:35:23 AM
You're the one who brought up the clock, the referees and the scorekeeper as reasons for Pomona's loss, not me. None of those excuses kept Pomona from winning the game last night.

OxyBob

I'm going to have to call you on that one.  No one is denying that Oxy played a hell of a game, but to deny that the officiating had nothing to do with it is a cop-out.  In a 1-point game, a blown call does in fact change the game.  The lack of a call on the shot-clock violation was terrible.  2-points right there that go the other way, PP walks away with the victory.

Browneagle and RFB:  I think you somewhat missed the point of what I was trying to say.  The Aztec Bowl is supposedly the best d3 players in the country.  I never said that Bryant and Goff weren't good players, they most certainly were, but if you're selecting what amounts to an All-Star team you should have all-stars, players who out-and-out dominate at their respective positions.   Neither Goff nor Bryant accomplished that.  You can point to game plans if you like eagle, and it's a perfectly valid argument, but even if the game plan involved him keeping the backside secure from cut-back, thus eliminating the backside pursuit tackles he was known for, it does not excuse getting controlled when the play was run directly at him.  Second, the coaches in the league certainly did vote him defensive player of year, and if you think that politics plays no role in that process I've got a bridge in brooklyn to sell to you.  And judging from the statistics they certainly played a role.  The point is, the defensive player of the year in SCIAC should be a player who not only dominated the opposition, but represents the crucial element of a teams defense, Bryant was neither of those things this year, in past years, he might very well have been, but this year?  No.

Comment on CalTech athletics:  those kids love the game, have the most fun out of probably anyone in SCAIC and develop interpersonal skills that many kids at their school sorely lack.  That being said there is something to be said for competitiveness.  Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think CalTech has won a single SCIAC athletic contest in about 10 years.  So basically, what do you value?  Letting kids who will never get a chance to play sports again compete and develop as people, or having a "stonger conference?"  (which while I see the argument for, I fail to see how allowing a team to remain at th bottom of the league hurts the conference, especially if everybody knows that they will always remain there, and therefore adjusts their perceptions of a team's record)

Chance of Bryant making it in the pros, at any level, is limited.  I don't know how good a safety he is (I know Air Force recruited him), but he plays pretty soft at linebacker.  Personal observation: saw him get completely shut down by Pomona's right tackle, a kid who had just that week returned from a 7-week long recovery from a tear in his knee.  I'm not knocking Bartesch (ended up being named first team) but if you can't dominate a D3 tackle who just came back from that long a lay-off, there's no chance of going pro. 

This speaks to a general problem I have with event like the Aztec Bowl.  While I love the general concept, I think that all to often it become a numbers-based vote rather then skill.  For every knowledgeble voter like Pat, there's someone who's only going to look at the physical tools.  For example, Wil Goff from Redlands a few years ago.  He was what, 6' 5", 275 D1 bounceback?  Not to say he wasn't good, but one of the best D3 players in the country would be a MAJOR stretch.  Anyone that does not flat-out dominate with physical size like that is simply not as good a player as someone who is say 6'. 240, but who dominates.  My beef is that Goff-type players will get chosen all the time over someone who might have had a better case for going, simply because they don't make the roster look as good on paper.  Just my opinion.

Brady:  Funny you mention MTV reality shows since we've already had a Pomona D-tackle and 3rd Baseman on Dismissed

Brady, I'm with you.  Bryant is a solid player, but was defintely not the defensive player of the year by any stretch of the imagination.  Last year he wasn't even the best linebacker on Oxy's team, McNeil was.  I don't know why the SCIAC coaches keep voting him so high, but all league stuff tends to get political, not necessarily the truth.

Not to appear partisan (well, I am) but how Matt Barbour wasn't given that award is beyond me.  Ask anyone in the conference how big a pain that kid is to block and you'll know what I'm talking about.  Plus he recorded about, oh, I dunno, 55 more total tackles then Bryant?  How does that make sense?

rockcat:

I think you ahve to be right regarding recruiting in that it is probably a matter of effort.  However, I think that in Pomona's case it gets a little confused for a couple of reasons.  For one, Pitzer is no longer the easy in it once was.  It's not Pomona, but their admissions standards and applicant pool has been steadily rising over the last couple of years.  Also, like you said: not many athletes are that turned on by Pitzer, especially kids who want to go to Pomona instead.  However, the fact that Pomona consistently loses to Oxy when it comes to recruits is often based on admissions pure and simple.  Pomona just can't get the numbers in that other schools can.  Additionally, there is only a limited pool of athletes that can meet the requirements that Pomona demands that is divided up amongst the other top schools (i.e. Amherst, Williams, Trinity, etc..). 

As far as your thoughts on Wheaton, I have to admit I made that comment on the US News report (which I know is flawed, but its all I had to go on).  However, I think that the problem you described in many ways benefits a school like Wheaton's athletics, in that athletes with a Christian focus, or who want a christian college for their education will be far more inclined to go to Wheaton instead of maybe a slightly bigger school where they could play.  Pure speculation there, but it's a thought.