Quote from: Erm Schmigget on April 16, 2010, 01:19:03 PM

Quote from: Titan Q on April 16, 2010, 12:56:38 PM
Got to thinking about trying to define what makes a "top coaching job in Division III."  I think some mix of all of the following...

* Winning tradition
* Quality of facilities
* Quality of the school (academically)
* Fan base (attendance)
* Institutional commitment to and support for winning

Missing any?

I think these factors are all present to some degree in the "top coaching jobs", whether talking DI, DII, DIII, or NAIA.  I think the jobs considered the best are ones where coaches feel like they have a legitimate chance to compete for a national championship (because they feel like they can successfully attract the type of recruits they want to target).

Hope clearly can put a check mark next to all 5 categories above.

*Commitment to academics above athletics

I was surprised and saddened to see a Hope player drop out of the program mid-season many years ago, but then encouraged to find out that the reason was to focus on academics, which had started to slip.  If I remember correctly, that decision meant missing out on a Final Four season.  The coach was sad to see the player go, but the best counsel was to encourage the student/athlete to focus on academics.

Unless I miss read it, Titan was referring not to what Hope would be looking at but instead listing what would make the job qualify as a top program.  Not sure I would agree that academics above athletics makes for a more prestigious job (see Kentucky at D1) but would agree that in the scheme of things it is the right ordering and the one Hope will choose.

Quote from: Hope Dutch on March 21, 2010, 09:56:52 AM
I did read something interesting regarding Jamie McFarlin.  The GR Press said she is a graduate student.  Having a graduate school gives players a opportunity to use a final year of eligibility that will exist at very few D3 schools.  Players at most other D3 schools complete their education and move on to the next phase of life.  With Wash U, they can move on toward a graduate degree and continue participating in D3 undergraduate sports.  Wow, talk about an advantage!

A few years ago, Hope had a fifth year senior on the men's side, PG Greg Immink, for medical reasons.  Obviously a tough decision for him to stick around when he could have moved on.  May have been easier if he could have started working on a Master's degree, which Hope does not offer.  But lots of D3 schools do - there are a number of state institutions at the D3 level.  Comparative advantage?  Perhaps, but no more than simply WashU being a great school.  In the end, Jamie McFarin likely made a very difficult personal decision to continue playing.  Good for her and the Bears.

Quote from: md241 on March 21, 2010, 10:04:04 PM
...next season with the Flying Dutch-they'll beat Calvin at least once, win 28 or 29 regular season games, the fans will drink the kool-aid, and they'll lose in the Elite 8 or Final Four; lather, rinse repeat for the 2011-2012 season!

Winning a championship takes some luck.  Take D1 basketball, Kansas was potentially the best team in the country this year.  Either way, what is not debatable is that they are a better team than Northern Iowa.  They play ten times, Kansas wins nine.  But one Saturday in March, their shots didn't fall, Northern Iowa shoots lights out and the Jayhawks didn't get a break or two to go their way.  Should you fire Self over it?  It's a what have you done for me lately world.

On the women's side, Connecticut is by far the best team.  Potentially they are the greatest team ever.  Yet, they  have to survive three weeks, pray for no injuries, and play amazing defense so no one goes on fire and hits every shot she takes.  They're great and I would put better than even money on them.  But that is still a tough slog.  Will you fire Auriemma if they don't bring home a second undefeated season?  What he would have done lately is a loss in March/April.

So, if the deal you put at the top is offered, sign me up.  We could only be so lucky as a school to have that record.  Last night, from what I heard on the radio and what folks here have written, there was a shot halfway down to tie it.  Perhaps that goes through and Hope cuts down the nets.  The luck wasn't there.  You give me the opportunity to watch rinse lather repeat and Hope likely wins one out of five (the odds favor it).  And even if they never do that - there is tons of victories and Final Fours.  Most schools would take it.  You know fans of the men's team would take it in a second.  What Coach Mo has done lately, is take a team to the Final Four.  That's a tremendous accomplishment, especially with the number of Division III schools.  If that's drinking the kool-aid, send me some more.   


To everyone else, sorry to feed the troll.  Couldn't help it.

I'll be real curious to hear from those that were at the game (or even television) about the defense in this game.  Shooting percentages seem to be pretty low (but that also includes FT shooting) and just wondering what seems to be most responsible.  Turnovers are not high but perhaps the Ds have done a great job closing on shooters...

Not to reopen the wounds from the last couple weeks (especially as someone that has only lurked the last couple of years) but even if the regional criteria changed, would Hope or Calvin change who they play? 

Seems to me, with the possible exception of some of the Chicago/Northern Illinois teams, that Hope and Calvin seem pretty happy playing the NAIA competition (and frankly more home games and home tournaments than home-and-home series games).  No concerns there.  As an alum, I get why the school sticks with the Michigan competition, keeps the athletes closer to home and studying, and gets home dates for the folks in West Michigan that love their basketball.  I can support all of that.  But then seems a bit disingenuous  to push for a change in the regional setup.  I am not convinced Hope or Calvin would take advantage of it because at the end of the day the schools have not prioritized Pool C participation. 

Go for it KnightSlappy, if it helps in any way.  I am all for seeing Hope and Calvin both making the tourney year in and year out.  But my outsiders alumni perspective just doesn't seem to show that as an important consideration for the Athletic Departments at either school.

Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on March 16, 2010, 04:45:44 PM
Am I correct in understanding that undergrads get a bus ride, tickets, and a hotel for free?  Or did I mis-understand and only the bus ride is free?

Appears that the only thing a student would need to pay for is food.  More here: http://bearsports.wustl.edu/releases/FanBus.html

Quote from: sac on March 07, 2009, 06:31:22 PM

Quote from: realist on March 07, 2009, 06:14:05 PM
Quoting Sac: "I forget who, and it doesn't matter, made the comment Hope got dominated on the boards........what boards?  14 missed shots doesn't produce alot of opportunities to get rebounds."

The box score shows Hope had 9 offensive, and 11 defensive rebounds for a total of  20 rebounds.
UWP had 6 offensive, and 26 defensive rebounds for a total of 32 rebounds. 

Granted only 17 possible rebounds occurred on one end of the floor, but 35 occured on Hope's end of the floor.  If Hope getting one out of four possible rebounds on it's end of the floor isn't being dominated    I am curious what your
criteria for being dominated on the glass is?   

How many offensive boards do you expect a team to get?  Hope rebounded 1 out of 4 on its end of the floor, on the year they rebounded 32% of the available offensive rebounding opportunities.  For this game that would have been 11, they rebounded 9.........so 2 off.

On defense for the year Hope rebounded 69% of the available defensive boards, for this game that would be 11.8, they rebounded 11.

They didn't get dominated on the glass, they got dominated in FG shooting.

I've continued to lurk but usually have no reason to post.  But sac, thank you, for posting a good explanation of why rebounding statistics are often the most overrated statistic in the game.

Too often you hear commentators talk about a good offense rebounding team in a game when they couldn't hit the broad side of the barn and have just gotten a lot of opportunities for good bounces.  I like the statistic that you put together for rebounding efficiency.  I would love to see that put out for all teams as a much more accurate guide to good rebounding.  You would still anticipate the defensive team to rebound at a higher rate (they start most shots to the back of the offensive player, or the hoop side) but would standard be 70% and good teams higher?  I think that is a much better statistic than simply the number of rebounds.

Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on July 02, 2008, 10:25:50 AM
Here's a link to the afore mentioned article

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/sports/x223000708/Hope-men-s-basketball-team-will-host-three-tournaments-at-DeVos

I know I should not go down this path again but since I didn't want to register on the Holland Sentinel site to make these comments here goes... 

Could the author of the previously referenced article refrain from using "pumped" and "fired" up, unless he is directly quoting someone with quotation marks?  I know this isn't the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post but some decorum in a serious newspaper seems in order.

Quote from: realist on May 24, 2008, 09:16:29 PM
academic ethics, or athletic ethics?   If they graduate that is fine, but if you win that is what is really important.  No moral high ground if all you want to do is win, no matter how you achieve your goal.  

Since the last time I thought a post was aimed at another school, you were very upset that I read into things in that way - I will follow up so I can ascertain exactly what you mean.

Realist, obviously no one can disagree with the exact posting within the quote above (other than the Aquinas bit so I removed it from this discussion).  So the question is - are you simply stating that ethically the way you accomplish a goal is important or are you suggesting that any school in particular is not acting ethically?

northb, are you suggesting that those supporting transfers are making a "transparent dig" at other schools in the conference rather than making a point about academic ethics?

Quote from: realist on May 15, 2008, 05:35:25 PM

Quote from: tniem on May 15, 2008, 11:37:48 AM
But you are going to have to explain more about this before we accept the thinly veiled swipe at Hope's emphasis on athletics, which most of us would not say is unhealthy. 

I am sorry if I somehow offended you.  When I wrote my 'SILLY" posts I really never gave any thought to Hope College, and even less to whether or not Hope places a greater or lesser emphasis on sports than Calvin does.   
I do not know enough about the inside operation of Hope College or how it views itself, to form an opinion one way or the other.   
I attended Calvin, and remain in reasonably close contact with many faculty, staff, students, and administrators there.   What I see, read, hear and observe leads me to conclude that sports are important at Calvin, but not so important that it dominates the College or how it sees itself.  As a sports fan I really would like it if Calvin would beat the sports drum a bit more than it has, and does.  It is a fact the current fund drive has had greater difficulty getting alums., and deep pockets enthused about the Spoelhof complex than any other portion of the fund drive. 

Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 15, 2008, 04:13:37 PM

Quote from: tniem on May 15, 2008, 11:37:48 AM
 

I don't think that this emphasis on athletics discussion started as a "swipe at Hope" but more as a reason as to why Calvin has not added a football program.

Not offended at all.  In fact, I am not sure I disagree with anything you wrote. 

I was responding to goknight68, who claimed that  "Calvin does not always place that much emphasis on sports as a whole, ............" which I took to mean that sports are not an emphasis at Calvin (in the chain of the discussion it is the conclusion I reached), which I simply disagree with (more below).  If that was not what he/she meant at all - then I apologize completely.

I was asking him/her (and now that I reread, I was harsher than I meant to be), to please go on.  From what I have seen, Calvin clearly cares and emphasizes sports - just as Hope does.  Does that mean its the most important thing at either school, clearly not or they would not be D3.  Guaranteed that you speak to Dr. Bultman and sports is not the first thing that he hopes is being accomplished on campus - I assume the same for Gaylen Byker.  So this is not intended as a slam of Calvin at all - and I would agree with all your comments on football - just trying to get further clarity from goknight68, who I took to be saying that Calvin has less emphasis on sports than Hope.

Quote from: goknights68 on May 14, 2008, 06:53:47 PM
Sac, I think you would be have to either attend here or work here to know what Realist and I are talking about.

Please help enlighten us.  After all, we hear all about Calvin so often on this board - it seems like its a big deal to a few of you.  So tell me does Calvin really not care about sports at all or is it that your social life on campus as completely dead as has been suggested in some of the guides in recent years?



By the way, I visited Calvin and grew up within a quarter mile of the campus and went to many Calvin bball games before HS - and as an outsider I wouldn't agree with either of the sentiments that I expressed above.  But you are going to have to explain more about this before we accept the thinly veiled swipe at Hope's emphasis on athletics, which most of us would not say is unhealthy. 

Quote from: realist on May 14, 2008, 08:48:17 AM
Another thought was that some aspects of the game of football, and some of the activities tied with it were not the types of behavior or conduct that the CRC really wanted it's youth involved in.  This thought pattern also seemed to prevail in many of the various Christian high schools closely aligned to the denomination.  In fact, several of them have only recently fielded football teams. 

Won't comment on the other parts of the post from realist (great insights by the way), but this is the one growing up in GR that I heard the most.  Since places like Calvin Christian and other CRC student heavy high schools in West Michigan did not have football, there never was the natural graduation that happened with so many other CRC kids/schools.  The addition of high school football programs more recently seemed to allow for the possibility for Calvin to add but realist is probably correct that the perceived need is not there - even if the ability is. 

Quote from: northb on May 12, 2008, 10:47:12 PM

Quote from: sac on May 12, 2008, 09:04:07 PM
So about that commissioners cup


07-08 Commissioner's Cup Standings
End in Tie Between Calvin and Hope

For the first time in the eight-decade-long history of the MIAA Commissioner's Cup (All-Sports) standings, there is a tie for first place. Calvin and Hope each accumulated 202 points in the compilation. The MIAA Commissioner's Cup award is based on the cumulative performance of each member school in the league's 18 sports for men and women.



The final Commissioner's Cup standings are determined on the basis of each college's standings in eight of nine sports for men and eight of nine sports for women.

So the theory that football costs Calvin in this "race" does not really hold much wieght, don't you think?  I suppose if Calvin had a men's football team and it finished higher than their lowest other sport, then that would have given them one more point and broken the tie. 

But if we get this heated up about basketball, how much worse would we be about football?!

Calvin finished sixth in Men's Golf.  So if "their football" team had finished at least fifth, they win the cup.  I'd say it at least plays a role.  Although, I doubt the decision to play football has anything to do with a point equation determined cup.  And my Calvin friends will surely point to national championships as more important then conference wins. 

Quote from: HopeConvert on April 09, 2008, 09:06:20 AM

Quote from: sac on April 08, 2008, 05:24:12 PM

Quote from: HopeConvert on April 08, 2008, 05:11:48 PM

Quote from: goknights68 on April 08, 2008, 01:10:59 PM
Should've fouled at the end of regulation.

They tried. It wasn't called.

I thought so to, even said so a few minutes ago in a PM.........but after watching it again, I'm not sure there was much of an effort to foul, and perhaps Calipari was just wishing it was a foul afterward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsCrHKx-Lq4&feature=bz303

Yep - on review, I agree. In fact, Rose seems to be lifting his hands in that classic "I didn't foul him" pose.

The worst thing from Calipari was saying that he was going to advocate for the rule that allows reviews of 3-point shots to be changed. John Rawls, call your office.

I don't think there is any way that Rose was going to foul him there.  You bear hug him if you really want the call.  The refs were right not to call anything - there wasn't even D1 contact. 

On the 3-point shooting rule, Calipari can push to change it if he wants but that ref seriously blew the call when he called it a three.  It wasn't really even close.  Good work going back to the tape but the official was right there and should not have missed that call.

And while free throw shooting was not very good - I'm not sure that is where Memphis lost the game.  You have to be able to inbound the ball late in the game and have some one go deep.  Not doing so cost them at least one three and probably an easy basket or two. 

OK, I will go back to lurker status until the next opportunity to throw in a couple cents.