MBB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Gregory Sager]

I don't mind the pestering. I didn't have the time to write a novel about how the game went and the reasons for a loss. I simply added a little comment on to what a few people had already said and that was that. It is an assumption, but it's not a dumb one.

Never said it was a dumb one. I said it was an incomplete one, and it still is. You wrote off the outcome to two off-court conditions that were affecting the Gusties, and neglected to say anything at all about the team that won the game -- or, for that matter, anything at all about the game itself in terms of how it played out. Ascribing your post to hurriedness doesn't really let you off the hook for that, because you obviously took the time to post something about the game.

If you score more points than the other team, you deserve to win. Nowhere in what I have said implies anything but that.

Actually, you did imply that, by omission. You said:

I think this game can be chalked up to the jet leg and not having played a game in about three weeks.

That's a very specific summation of the outcome that doesn't leave room for anything else.

In every game though, the winning team does things that get them the win and the losing team does things which cause them to lose. I was merely speaking from my side of things.

What you said in the first sentence above is true. But by making a flatly declarative statement about what caused the outcome of the game ("this game can be chalked up to ...") and neglecting to mention the other team's impact upon the outcome, you were doing more than "speaking from my side of things." You were making an erroneous statement about why GAC lost -- erroneous because it was incomplete.

But you can't make the case that HPU imposed there will on the Gusties. When you turn the ball over more than the other team, and you get outrebounded by a lot even though you have clear size advantages at almost every position, you aren't imposing your will.

Sure, I can make that case. Defense is all about imposing your will upon the other team, and GAC's poor shooting didn't take place in a vacuum, did it? Offensive strategy is predicated upon getting the shots that are most likely to go into the basket, and HPU obviously executed that strategy against the GAC defense pretty effectively.

Besides, when I said that HPU "imposed its will" upon GAC, I was referring to the final 14:25 of the game in which the Sea Warriors had the lead, a lead they did not relinquish. That's clear if you look again at the last line of my post:

Is it not possible that HPU simply stepped it up in the second half, played better basketball, and imposed its will upon the Gusties?

I haven't done a PBP breakdown of that last 14:25, but I would not be at all surprised if the Sea Warriors outrebounded GAC and had fewer turnovers than the Gusties during that span.

GAC traditionally is at the top our near the top in Field Goal % every year because of how patient they are and their shot selection. Knowing this, it strikes me odd when you see a shooting performance like this.

It doesn't suggest to you that Hawai'i Pacific was playing good defense? I'm sure that those guys aren't on scholarship just because they look good in teal and green.

What is even more telling is the number of threes taken by GAC. GAC is almost always at the bottom in 3 pt. attempts in the conference for the reasons mentioned above. They never force up a lot of threes so to shoot so many tells me they were constantly getting or being given good looks from three, and when you have Grey who was shooting 60% from three on the year and Van Sickle who is a career 43% threepoint shooter, I usually would like the gusties chances if they are getting that many easy attempts.

1. Why do you assume that those trey attempts were "easy" or that the Gusties were "constantly getting or being given good looks from three"?
2. Is it not reasonable to guess that the bigger Sea Warriors limited the GAC inside game while at the same time using their quickness advantage to cut off possible GAC drives to the basket, thus forcing the Gusties to shoot an atypically high number of trey attempts? Again, that's a good case of "imposing your will" in that it implies that HPU forced GAC out of its game and made it take shots that it is not accustomed to taking.

But that's how basketball goes sometimes. You can take care of the ball, play hard, rebound, take good shots, execute your offense to perfection, and just be cold as team and lose. As a coach, you can live with nights like this because you controlled everything you possible could very well. So yes, you can execute better, play tougher defense and still lose. This is why you give the sea warriors credit

Hmm. Nothing you said in the three sentences prior to the last one gives the Sea Warriors any credit at all!

but you can also look at it and say that if we weren't so cold from the field we win that game because we did everything else we wanted to do.

You're still not addressing the elephant in the room, which is why the Gusties were so cold from the field. Your point that the Gusties took a significantly higher number of trey attempts than they're used to taking is a step in the right direction, but you're not all the way there yet. Here it is: There is a very high probability that HPU was defensively able to make the Gusties take shots that they didn't necessarily want to take or are used to taking, and that this had a sizably negative impact upon GAC's shooting.

The layoff comment was just an attempt to get a jab in at AO, but I have played enough basketball to know that not having your legs whether it be from jet-leg or exhaustion will cause poor shooting performances more than anything else. It isn't the only reason they lost, just one of them. And whether it was jet-leg, the layoff, or just one of those nights, the comment was aimed at pointing out that on the surface it looks as though they just shot poorly and nothing else.

I'm not discounting the jet lag argument, because it has some legitimacy, but as someone else pointed out it's well down the list of excuses for a loss, especially when you've had a day to recover from your jet lag.

Also, I don't care about HPU so talking about how they deserved to win and earned the victory is something I didn't feel like waisting my time about. I was specifically interested in GAC's point of view and how they played.

Yes, but don't you see that that's immaterial? You made a specific statement about what caused the outcome of the GAC @ HPU game, and that statement did not mention the other team. Whether HPU is a team that you care about or not doesn't really matter as far as that statement is concerned.

If it were another miac opponent I would feel differently, but based on who they were playing and how the facts stacked up, I was interested in only speaking about things from the one perspective. Oh and the day after a 7 hour flight not counting the lay-over, your legs aren't fresh. So as you can see, my comment was a little more thought out than you were willing to look into.

Thought out? Perhaps, but incomplete and thus erroneous as well.

[Gregory Sager]

That might be the UPSET OF THE YEAR!!   I guess we need to fear the UMAC now...or were the Green Knights looking ahead to tonights game with Chicago?

I know how much you guys love to rag on the UMAC, but the Northwestern win over St. Norbert wasn't even the biggest upset of the night, let alone the biggest upset of the year. Transylvania's win over Wash U was the biggest upset, and miacsuperfan makes a good case that the Hamline win over Wheaton was a bigger upset, too.

[AO]

That might be the UPSET OF THE YEAR!!   I guess we need to fear the UMAC now...or were the Green Knights looking ahead to tonights game with Chicago?

I know how much you guys love to rag on the UMAC, but the Northwestern win over St. Norbert wasn't even the biggest upset of the night, let alone the biggest upset of the year. Transylvania's win over Wash U was the biggest upset, and miacsuperfan makes a good case that the Hamline win over Wheaton was a bigger upset, too.

You're right.  It's not that big of an upset.  My squad is pretty good.   The best athlete on the team went 0-6 from 3 and we still won.  I don't think Norbert was very overrated as they had won them all including wins over oshkosh and elmhurst, but that doesn't mean I think Northwestern or Hamline deserve to be in the top 25 now.

[VOJ]

This brings to mind the classic chicken-or-the egg theory.

If Favre doesn't completely suck in the first half — 36 yards, 2 fumbles — the "magnificent" second half wouldn't have been necessary. At the same time, you wouldn't be calling Favre magnificient if the Bears DB would have just caught the INT that was tipped right into his lap on the last drive.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that Chuckie's knees have to be a little tender after all the love he was sending #4's way last night...

Granted, Favre had a poor first half, but he played well enough in the second half for Minnesota to have won the game. And a tipped ball is a tipped ball; it's not necessarily the QB's fault. My point was that VOJ's taking Favre to task after the loss was misplaced. But that was before I learned that VOJ is a Packers fan.

Greg...My comments about #4 were more about dropping 3 of their last 4 and the "schism" in the locker room and if you don't think there is a "schism" then you don't realize how things work with the Legend...by the way being a Packer fan and watching him for a number of years closely this is not the first time he has created issues.  Yes he played well in the second half and WW is right he was due for a game losing INT.  I am not sure what deal he made with the devil to have the season he is having but I imagine it will cost him something in the end.

Step back and look at the big picture, VOJ. Minnesota is having a hugely successful season. The Vikings have clinched the NFC North and have a chance to draw a first-round bye, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that Brett Favre at age 40 is having one of the best seasons that any NFL signal-caller has posted in this decade. Believe me, there's gonna be twenty teams in the NFL that would gladly trade places with the Vikings, "schism" or no "schism" -- and the Bears are one of those twenty.

Then again, I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you about this. I've never known a Packers fan who could be rational about the subject of Brett Favre, whether Favre was wearing green or purple.

I also think the other assessments of the Vikes are accurate, weak secondary, Jared Allen on reputation alone gets more ink then is deserved was MIA, two tackles no sacks, I am not sure he got close to Cutler until the postgame handshake...

Number 1 seed in the playoffs in their grasp in a rivalry game and they laid an egg in the first half, nice comeback but in the end you lost to a then 5 win team, a second straight lackluster effort in a prime time game says it all...

I'll give you the same line that I've been giving to Gacman about the GAC @ HPU game: Very often the outcome of a game has as much to do with the other team as it does with yours, if not more. Fans are sometimes so wrapped up in their own team -- or, as in your case, wrapped up in a vendetta against a particular player   -- that they overlook what the other team is doing or has done. Chicago won that game on Monday night as much as Minnesota lost it.

Here is your rationality...is Favre a great QB, yes tremendous physical skills and at times good decision making, at times, and at other times as Clint Eastwood said, "a man has to know his limitations".  Was I happy when he signed with Minnesota, not a chance but what true fan of the Pack would be...he plays for the enemy now...saying I hope Favre does well but the Pack wins would be like me hoping former Johnnie Peter Leslie goes for 40 but the Johnnies beat them in the end...he plays for the rival now, which means I don't want him to do well.

Here is the thing...whether Favre does well or not a Packer fan wins...if he sucked, which he has not, the Vikings would be awful...so good for you Vikings fans, but remember his performance also got Chilly a nice fat extension and Favre will probably not be around for the end of that which means take away number 4 and you have TJack and Chilly a match made in hell that I would not wish upon my worst enemy...well maybe if my worst enemy was a Vikings fan  

So Favre to the Vikings in hindsight might be a good thing afterall, one good year or maybe two...probably not good enough to get the holy grail, if you look at the BIG PICTURE...oh and the trophy says Lombardi on it for a reason fellas and so far the Lombardi magic has worked leading to an 0-4 record in the big game for the purple.

CMob....right back at you...oh and the Packers have had talent, can't remember the year but they pushed the Eagles to OT in Philly in the playoffs only to have Brett throw a pick to set up the Eagles with the win...good enough team to win in Philly except for the traditional mistake by the Legend.

That might be the UPSET OF THE YEAR!!   I guess we need to fear the UMAC now...or were the Green Knights looking ahead to tonights game with Chicago?

I know how much you guys love to rag on the UMAC, but the Northwestern win over St. Norbert wasn't even the biggest upset of the night, let alone the biggest upset of the year. Transylvania's win over Wash U was the biggest upset, and miacsuperfan makes a good case that the Hamline win over Wheaton was a bigger upset, too.

You're right.  It's not that big of an upset.  My squad is pretty good.   The best athlete on the team went 0-6 from 3 and we still won.  I don't think Norbert was very overrated as they had won them all including wins over oshkosh and elmhurst, but that doesn't mean I think Northwestern or Hamline deserve to be in the top 25 now.

Sensei...you might be able to take people behind the woodshed with DIII Bball logic, but you fail to grasp sarcasm...I only said it was the upset of the year to beat a certain UMAC-honk poster to the punch...

AO...your New Year's resolution should be to heed these words...Northwestern got lucky and we all know it, St. Norbert's was looking ahead, they are overrated...I saw Oshkosh they are a one man team similiar to those the St. Mary's has had over the years with WW, in other words its DJ Marsh, maybe one other guy(a freshman post whose name I can't remember) who can play and three guys who look good in uniform.   Northwestern ranked...puuuhhhleassee leave the idiotic comments to your rants on the UMAC board...and Hamline ranked?  One win does not make a season, lets see the Baron's crew string a couple say 5 or 6 together...

Drake...you are right about the Tommies game at UWSP...a tall order to say the least, it will be a great game to get them ready for the stretch run of the MIAC season, but realistically they will not face anyone as good in the MIAC as they did a couple of nights ago.  

 

[Drake Palmer]

I don't mind the pestering. I didn't have the time to write a novel about how the game went and the reasons for a loss. I simply added a little comment on to what a few people had already said and that was that. It is an assumption, but it's not a dumb one.

Never said it was a dumb one. I said it was an incomplete one, and it still is. You wrote off the outcome to two off-court conditions that were affecting the Gusties, and neglected to say anything at all about the team that won the game -- or, for that matter, anything at all about the game itself in terms of how it played out. Ascribing your post to hurriedness doesn't really let you off the hook for that, because you obviously took the time to post something about the game.

If you score more points than the other team, you deserve to win. Nowhere in what I have said implies anything but that.

Actually, you did imply that, by omission. You said:

I think this game can be chalked up to the jet leg and not having played a game in about three weeks.

That's a very specific summation of the outcome that doesn't leave room for anything else.

In every game though, the winning team does things that get them the win and the losing team does things which cause them to lose. I was merely speaking from my side of things.

What you said in the first sentence above is true. But by making a flatly declarative statement about what caused the outcome of the game ("this game can be chalked up to ...") and neglecting to mention the other team's impact upon the outcome, you were doing more than "speaking from my side of things." You were making an erroneous statement about why GAC lost -- erroneous because it was incomplete.

But you can't make the case that HPU imposed there will on the Gusties. When you turn the ball over more than the other team, and you get outrebounded by a lot even though you have clear size advantages at almost every position, you aren't imposing your will.

Sure, I can make that case. Defense is all about imposing your will upon the other team, and GAC's poor shooting didn't take place in a vacuum, did it? Offensive strategy is predicated upon getting the shots that are most likely to go into the basket, and HPU obviously executed that strategy against the GAC defense pretty effectively.

Besides, when I said that HPU "imposed its will" upon GAC, I was referring to the final 14:25 of the game in which the Sea Warriors had the lead, a lead they did not relinquish. That's clear if you look again at the last line of my post:

Is it not possible that HPU simply stepped it up in the second half, played better basketball, and imposed its will upon the Gusties?

I haven't done a PBP breakdown of that last 14:25, but I would not be at all surprised if the Sea Warriors outrebounded GAC and had fewer turnovers than the Gusties during that span.

GAC traditionally is at the top our near the top in Field Goal % every year because of how patient they are and their shot selection. Knowing this, it strikes me odd when you see a shooting performance like this.

It doesn't suggest to you that Hawai'i Pacific was playing good defense? I'm sure that those guys aren't on scholarship just because they look good in teal and green.

What is even more telling is the number of threes taken by GAC. GAC is almost always at the bottom in 3 pt. attempts in the conference for the reasons mentioned above. They never force up a lot of threes so to shoot so many tells me they were constantly getting or being given good looks from three, and when you have Grey who was shooting 60% from three on the year and Van Sickle who is a career 43% threepoint shooter, I usually would like the gusties chances if they are getting that many easy attempts.

1. Why do you assume that those trey attempts were "easy" or that the Gusties were "constantly getting or being given good looks from three"?
2. Is it not reasonable to guess that the bigger Sea Warriors limited the GAC inside game while at the same time using their quickness advantage to cut off possible GAC drives to the basket, thus forcing the Gusties to shoot an atypically high number of trey attempts? Again, that's a good case of "imposing your will" in that it implies that HPU forced GAC out of its game and made it take shots that it is not accustomed to taking.

But that's how basketball goes sometimes. You can take care of the ball, play hard, rebound, take good shots, execute your offense to perfection, and just be cold as team and lose. As a coach, you can live with nights like this because you controlled everything you possible could very well. So yes, you can execute better, play tougher defense and still lose. This is why you give the sea warriors credit

Hmm. Nothing you said in the three sentences prior to the last one gives the Sea Warriors any credit at all!

but you can also look at it and say that if we weren't so cold from the field we win that game because we did everything else we wanted to do.

You're still not addressing the elephant in the room, which is why the Gusties were so cold from the field. Your point that the Gusties took a significantly higher number of trey attempts than they're used to taking is a step in the right direction, but you're not all the way there yet. Here it is: There is a very high probability that HPU was defensively able to make the Gusties take shots that they didn't necessarily want to take or are used to taking, and that this had a sizably negative impact upon GAC's shooting.

The layoff comment was just an attempt to get a jab in at AO, but I have played enough basketball to know that not having your legs whether it be from jet-leg or exhaustion will cause poor shooting performances more than anything else. It isn't the only reason they lost, just one of them. And whether it was jet-leg, the layoff, or just one of those nights, the comment was aimed at pointing out that on the surface it looks as though they just shot poorly and nothing else.

I'm not discounting the jet lag argument, because it has some legitimacy, but as someone else pointed out it's well down the list of excuses for a loss, especially when you've had a day to recover from your jet lag.

Also, I don't care about HPU so talking about how they deserved to win and earned the victory is something I didn't feel like waisting my time about. I was specifically interested in GAC's point of view and how they played.

Yes, but don't you see that that's immaterial? You made a specific statement about what caused the outcome of the GAC @ HPU game, and that statement did not mention the other team. Whether HPU is a team that you care about or not doesn't really matter as far as that statement is concerned.

If it were another miac opponent I would feel differently, but based on who they were playing and how the facts stacked up, I was interested in only speaking about things from the one perspective. Oh and the day after a 7 hour flight not counting the lay-over, your legs aren't fresh. So as you can see, my comment was a little more thought out than you were willing to look into.

Thought out? Perhaps, but incomplete and thus erroneous as well.

Greg- Slow afternoon waiting for the game against UW-Superior?? 

[Drake Palmer]

Mac flames out against River Falls 74-40 http://athletics.macalester.edu/custompages/m_basketball_stats/stats10/1230-RF.HTM

At the half, Hamline up 42-28 over Cal Lutheran.  Same starting lineup for the Pipes 2 games in a row, & Ray Brown has 13 first half points on 5-9 shooting, 3-5 from the 3pt line.

[Drake Palmer]

It's a wrap. The Vipes bandwagon is loading up for Minnesota

[MiacLostProphet]

As my homestate wrapper brother ali would say: "The truth is here, the truth is here"

A lot of hoopla goin on the board lately.  I've been out of the loop due to the holiday work schedule but i can only imagine what the board has sounded like.....Tommies Tommies Tommies, Johnnies Johnnies Johnnies, Gusties Gusties Gusties.  And I thought my eyes deceived me but mac has 2 wins! Talk about a turnaround!

Gacman, as the wu-tang clan once said "Gregory Sager aint nuttin to F' with." or at least I think they said that.  I will bow to the sensai, as i will bow to BIG carl hipp for his game winner the other night, huge win on the road, hopefully they can keep turning the corner in conference play.  And bless my ears, did the pipes just win a tournament behind Ray "bron-bron" Brown, the christmas season is truly here!

wonka, why you such a Brett Favre hater? Are you telling me your championship losing team didn't have a bounce or two go their way, or a game or two not go as planned? superbowl wins: BF-1, MN/brad childess-0.  Let the slinging begin.

Focker out

[piperinsider]

Brownie - We got a good vibe - 11 rebounds. Solid.

Can someone explain how Hamline beats Wheaton and Cal Lutheran, but loses to St. Olaf and who was it - Concordia or Auggie Tech?

E-85 is $1.98 in Hutch. Let's fill the bandwagon tank out there and save a few bucks. All aboard....

[Drake Palmer]

Brownie - We got a good vibe - 11 rebounds. Solid.

Can someone explain how Hamline beats Wheaton and Cal Lutheran, but loses to St. Olaf and who was it - Concordia or Auggie Tech?
E-85 is $1.98 in Hutch. Let's fill the bandwagon tank out there and save a few bucks. All aboard....

PI - The answer is D. All of the above - the Oles,Dawgs, & Cobbers.  Must be a MN Lutheran thang.

[AO]

That might be the UPSET OF THE YEAR!!   I guess we need to fear the UMAC now...or were the Green Knights looking ahead to tonights game with Chicago?

I know how much you guys love to rag on the UMAC, but the Northwestern win over St. Norbert wasn't even the biggest upset of the night, let alone the biggest upset of the year. Transylvania's win over Wash U was the biggest upset, and miacsuperfan makes a good case that the Hamline win over Wheaton was a bigger upset, too.

You're right.  It's not that big of an upset.  My squad is pretty good.   The best athlete on the team went 0-6 from 3 and we still won.  I don't think Norbert was very overrated as they had won them all including wins over oshkosh and elmhurst, but that doesn't mean I think Northwestern or Hamline deserve to be in the top 25 now.

Sensei...you might be able to take people behind the woodshed with DIII Bball logic, but you fail to grasp sarcasm...I only said it was the upset of the year to beat a certain UMAC-honk poster to the punch...

AO...your New Year's resolution should be to heed these words...Northwestern got lucky and we all know it, St. Norbert's was looking ahead, they are overrated...I saw Oshkosh they are a one man team similiar to those the St. Mary's has had over the years with WW, in other words its DJ Marsh, maybe one other guy(a freshman post whose name I can't remember) who can play and three guys who look good in uniform.   Northwestern ranked...puuuhhhleassee leave the idiotic comments to your rants on the UMAC board...and Hamline ranked?  One win does not make a season, lets see the Baron's crew string a couple say 5 or 6 together...

What are you talking about?  Lucky?  I suppose if the Johnnies beat Norbert it would be pure talent and coaching.    The way you talk about Oshkosh you would think the Johnnies would have won by 30.  Either St. Norbert is overrated and it's not an upset or Northwestern got lucky somehow (were you at the game?  did we pay off the refs or hit 75% from 3?)  It's pretty hard to rank teams in D3, but Norbert played a pretty tough schedule and was 7-0.   They earned the #12 spot.  Once you lose to a team like Carleton at home by 11, then you lose your ranking, it's pretty simple.   If you read my post again, note that I said Northwestern and Hamline should not be ranked now, but they are most definitely both capable of beating teams in the top 25 again.   Both squads have a lot of potential, but have played well below it for most of the season.

[Gregory Sager]

Greg- Slow afternoon waiting for the game against UW-Superior?? 

Just workin' off the pregame nervous energy, DP.

So Favre to the Vikings in hindsight might be a good thing afterall, one good year or maybe two...probably not good enough to get the holy grail, if you look at the BIG PICTURE...oh and the trophy says Lombardi on it for a reason fellas and so far the Lombardi magic has worked leading to an 0-4 record in the big game for the purple.

"So far the Lombardi magic has worked"? Da Coach begs to differ, my friend:

Sensei...you might be able to take people behind the woodshed with DIII Bball logic, but you fail to grasp sarcasm...I only said it was the upset of the year to beat a certain UMAC-honk poster to the punch...

Uh, Vee Oh Jay, since Northwestern was the underdog in that game, and it was an upset when the Eagles beat St. Norbert -- in fact, it's quite likely that no UMAC team has ever beaten a ranked team before, or at least I'll bet that no UMAC team has ever beaten a ranked team in the ranked team's gym -- your comment in the previous post could definitely be read as a legitimate attempt at a point, even though the Wash U loss to Transy was a bigger upset. You need to work harder at the sarcasm thing ... y'know, as in making a statement that can't actually be taken at face value.

[miacsuperfan]

It's a wrap. The Vipes bandwagon is loading up for Minnesota

nice job out west by hamline, but it is still hard to imagine how the 1-3 vipes will be any better off than 4-6 at the turn in the miac---when you look at their next six games (car, @bu, smu, @gac, sju, @ust).  i hope the bandwagon has some railings on it.   

[sumander]

Riddle me this D3 MBB posters:


What does this:



plus this:



equal??


The people waiting to join Gacman & VOJ behind the woodshed, having been sent there by our Sensei

[Gacman]

Greg-This can continue to go on and on if we so choose, but in the end we will have to agree to disagree. What I find interesting though is how everything you have tried to prove or disprove has been based on conjectures just as much as mine have. When every point you make or choose to highlight is saying in one form or another that the opposite happened without proof of your, you are making baseless claims yourself. If my points are so erroneous and incomplete then give me facts showing me this. You can try to break down every sentence I say in attempt to make what I'm saying the complete opposite of what happened, but one fact you can't deny or disprove is that I have more intimate knowledge and understanding of how this team runs and operates in everthing they do compared to you, so when I point out that the high number of 3's taken has greater chance of being what was given to them than that's all the gusties could get because HPU was more athletic than the gusties thus making them have to settle for those 3's, although your theory is a nice attempt to disprove a point, it is wrong.

One is that the gusties don't drive the ball as part of their offense like most teams do. Putting the ball on the floor is the opposite of what Coach Hanson preaches. The only time the ball should be put on the floor in his mind is to improve the passing angle to the post. Which brings me to my next point. GAC's starting post's were the leading scorers for the gusties. This also is a clue that the three's the gusties were getting were good looks.

To give a quick overview of how the gusties offense works, Usually they have a 3 out 2 in offense, and the main objective is to get the ball into the post because that is where our offense runs through. Getting the ball into the post is our form of penetration. Once the ball is inside the defense has to react and make  a decision, do you let our post go one on one or do you collapse and force the post to make a pass back out. The fact that our posts were the leading scores tells me we didn't have a hard time getting it into them which in turn sets up everything else including the 3's we take.

If our posts aren't scoring at all and are being shut out, then what you were trying prove as reason they took so many threes is more probable but that isn't what happened. What happens to our offense when good pressure defense if being applied to our guards is the result of the Hilo game. We have a lot of turnovers, our posts barely score because the guards can't get around the pressure to get them the ball, and we don't shoot a lot of 3's because GAC doesn't have the guards that create their own shot well.

Two, you said that although you didn't look at the PBP the last 14 and change you can probably assume that HPU outrebounded and had less turnovers than GAC in that stretch, thus proving your point of how HPU "imposed their will" on the gusties. Well, you should have taken the time to look instead making another baseless claim. HPU in the last 15 minutes of the game had 7 turnovers, GAC had 2. In the last 15 minutes of the game HPU had 15 rebounds, 2 were offensive. In the last 15 minutes GAC had 17 rebounds and 11 of them were offensive. So much for HPU "IMPOSING THEIR WILL." HPU simply just made more shots down the stretch.

Now I'm a pretty stubborn person and it looks like I'm going up against the same. Your biggest point is that I never took any time to give the other team credit. My biggest point is that we just shot poorly, and as hard as it is to admit it we both are probably right. Teams can simply just shoot poorly because that's the way life goes sometimes, and not because the defense was tough. Every team that wins did whatever they were supposed to do to win, and deserve that credit. And to further show the point that in the first Hawaii game we just shot poorly and the other team was hot and it was worth pointing out, the second Hawaii game featured similar shooting numbers, but GAC got it handed to them in all phases. NO excuses there. You, see I have no problem calling it like I see it. I'm not sooo biased that I can't look past the faults of the team I support, but this is D3 basketball, not T-Ball. I don't have to give every team that beats us a pat on the back so they feel good about themselves and what they accomplished. I like my gusties, but I'm a pretty straight shooter. I'll be the first to tell you we sucked it up or didn't play hard just like we were outplayed in the 2nd half of SMU. We didn't deserve to beat Concordia. Augsburg was a great game by both teams. Van Sickle should get less minutes, Paulson probably shouldn't be starting, and our lack of a go-to person is probably our biggest weakness. I'm going to continue to call it like I see it as long as I'm on this board.