MBB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[VOJ]

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.

Greg...I see the Bear-Packer rivalry built on respect...not pure hate like the Viking-Packer rivalry seems to be built on...and that comes from living in both places at different times and listening to the banter from the fans...and you could argue that Lombardi magic worked the last time out against Da Bears...and as someone once said you can't make chicken salad out of chicken ____ which is what you could call the Pats in 85 as they were way overmatched.

And as for the upset talk...it was typed with a sense of over hype and sarcasm...and Sum, thanks for having my back pal, I don't feel like I was taken to the woodshed but thanks

[Nites]

Gusties lose to University of Hawaii at Hilo, 69-50.  Must have been sea sickness this time.   

Ty Moore, Sam Paulson and Jesse Van Sickle are the high scorers for Gustavous, each with 6 points.  Ouch!     http://vulcans.uhh.hawaii.edu/uploads/mbk/2009/123009m.htm

Gac, would you care to pontificate as to what happened?  I'll duck out of the way so I don't catch any slivers from the woodshed.

[Gacman]

Gusties lose to University of Hawaii at Hilo, 69-50.  Must have been sea sickness this time.   Ty Moore, Sam Paulson and Jesse Van Sickle are the high scorers for Gustavous, each with 6 points.  Ouch!     http://vulcans.uhh.hawaii.edu/uploads/mbk/2009/123009m.htm

Gac, would you care to pontificate as to what happened?  I'll duck out of the way so I don't catch any slivers from the woodshed.

That's a good one.  Yeah it looks like they got outplayed in almost every aspect of the game. I still can't figure out what is going on with Van Sickle. I thought he had turned the corner after the SMU and AUG game, but I guess not. I think he is only 7-30 on threes for the season. After a one game blurp, Paulson is back to his normal self. 9 steals by Hilo tells me that they must have been putting good pressure on the guards since believe it or not Paulson was the only starter without a turnover.

[AO]

Gusties lose to University of Hawaii at Hilo, 69-50.  Must have been sea sickness this time.   Ty Moore, Sam Paulson and Jesse Van Sickle are the high scorers for Gustavous, each with 6 points.  Ouch!     http://vulcans.uhh.hawaii.edu/uploads/mbk/2009/123009m.htm

Gac, would you care to pontificate as to what happened?  I'll duck out of the way so I don't catch any slivers from the woodshed.

That's a good one.  Yeah it looks like they got outplayed in almost every aspect of the game. I still can't figure out what is going on with Van Sickle. I thought he had turned the corner after the SMU and AUG game, but I guess not. I think he is only 7-30 on threes for the season. After a one game blurp, Paulson is back to his normal self. 9 steals by Hilo tells me that they must have been putting good pressure on the guards since believe it or not Paulson was the only starter without a turnover.

How do you play a whole game without having one of your players make 3 shots?  There's got to be a record in there somewhere as no gustie scored more than 6 points.

[Nites]

[How do you play a whole game without having one of your players make 3 shots?  There's got to be a record in there somewhere as no gustie scored more than 6 points.

I believe that is the first time Ty Moore has scored in a college game.  Now, if he never plays another game, he can tout that he once led the team in scoring in a game in which he never missed a shot from the field.   

Do I detect a hint of jealousy in your post, AO, that you weren't high scorer for NW the game you lit up the scoreboard for your career high of 6 points?   

[AO]

[How do you play a whole game without having one of your players make 3 shots?  There's got to be a record in there somewhere as no gustie scored more than 6 points.

I believe that is the first time Ty Moore has scored in a college game.  Now, if he never plays another game, he can tout that he once led the team in scoring in a game in which he never missed a shot from the field.   

Do I detect a hint of jealousy in your post, AO, that you weren't high scorer for NW the game you lit up the scoreboard for your career high of 6 points?   

I scored 6 once?   I'll have to look that one up before patting myself on the back as I don't remember playing so well.   

[columbianmaffia]

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.

+k for most quotes i have ever seen responded to in a post

gopher nation vs iowa state 5pm...i hope they can pull one out here

[Willy Wonka]

Wow. I stopped reading gacman after he gave a gross generalization of the Gustie offense in his "second" graph.

Can you start breaking up your posts into chapters for us from now on? Or at least limit your "paragraphs" to 500 words or less? Thanks in advance.

[Gacman]

Wow. I stopped reading gacman after he gave a gross generalization of the Gustie offense in his "second" graph.

Can you start breaking up your posts into chapters for us from now on? Or at least limit your "paragraphs" to 500 words or less? Thanks in advance.

You are right about the paragraphs. I tend to be a little long winded.

[piperinsider]

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.   

CAR - win
BU - win
SMU - win
GAC - loss
SJU - win
UST - loss

5-5 - let's play!

Bolts on the railings need to be tightened up.

[John Gleich]

(...Preceeding long quote)

+k for most quotes i have ever seen responded to in a post

gopher nation vs iowa state 5pm...i hope they can pull one out here

There actually was a quote pyramid going on over either last Christmas break or the off-season last year that went on and on until it finally fizzled... HERE it is.  After the season, last year.

[SUMMIT!!!!!]

[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.
 

Uhhhhh...you might want to check your facts there Mr VOJ. Peter Leslie followed his brother Dan's (and All-American baseball player, an extremely rare commodityat the Litte boys school in da woods) footsteps to UST from Day One of his freshman year.  Perhaps you mean Noah Kaiser?

[Gregory Sager]

Greg...I see the Bear-Packer rivalry built on respect...not pure hate like the Viking-Packer rivalry seems to be built on...and that comes from living in both places at different times and listening to the banter from the fans...and you could argue that Lombardi magic worked the last time out against Da Bears...and as someone once said you can't make chicken salad out of chicken ____ which is what you could call the Pats in 85 as they were way overmatched.

You must not have spent much time in Chicago, then, because the vast majority of the Bears fans I know -- and I've lived in this city for thirty years -- absolutely hate the Packers. Hate, hate, hate. The old saying in Chicago is, "We can go 2-14, as long as the two wins are against the Packers," and they mean it.

It's part of a wider sociological phenomenon, really, the whole FIB vs. Cheesehead thing. Every summer Illinoisians invade Wisconsin to camp or live in their summer cottages, spend a lot of money (much of it going to local police who are always hunting for Illinois license plates), and generally treat Wisconsin as though it's Illinois's largest state park. And Wisconsinites resent it greatly, even as they're taking our money. Plus, you have to remember that this rivalry is the oldest in the NFL; you learn how to hate the Packers at your grandfather's knee (and grandfathers in Wisconsin do the same in reverse, except that they have to shift the kid from one knee to the other every now and then so that they can have a clear shot at the spittoon).

That so-called "Lombardi magic" didn't work in '85, and Bears fans are never going to let anybody forget about it. It's not as though pro sports success is a frequent occurrence in Chicago as it is, so they're going to milk that Ditka Super Bowl win until doomsday itself.

And as for the upset talk...it was typed with a sense of over hype and sarcasm...and Sum, thanks for having my back pal, I don't feel like I was taken to the woodshed but thanks

Yes, but it doesn't read that way. It reads more like, "Ohmigod! A team from that crappy-ass UMAC actually managed to beat a ranked team! It's a modern-day Christmas miracle! If a team from AO's lame-o league has beaten a ranked team, then it must be the biggest upset in all of D3!" than the way you intended it, which was, "Hmpf. So Northwestern beat St. Norbert. Big deal. Oh, well, I'd better post something on the board before AO shows up and starts blowing his trumpet over it."

[Gregory Sager]

Gacman, I'll give you credit for persistence. I'll also give you credit for poring through the PBP and proving that GAC maintained its advantage in rebounds and turnovers throughout the game.

Thanks for the lecture about the Gusties' offensive philosophy, but it was completely unnecessary. I'm well aware of GAC's style of play, as I've seen them several times in recent years. Also, that style is very reminiscent of the Illinois Wesleyan brand of ball used by Dennis Bridges back in the day, so I'm even more familiar with it than you think.

As for the whole "imposing their will" thing, you're only considering half of the court, the GAC offensive half. HPU's posts scored more points and shot for a better percentage than did GAC. In other words, they did more will-imposing at their end than GAC did at its end.

It's not a matter of, "I say one thing, you say the opposite, and between the two of us we have to agree to disagree." The bottom line is this: You wrote off the loss to two non-game issues, GAC's jet lag and GAC's extended layoff. You said nothing about the actual game play itself, and absolutely nothing about the team that won the game. Your post read as if GAC was playing itself. I don't need to have been there or to have worn a Gusties uniform at some point in my life to know that Hawai'i Pacific must have done something that factored into the Sea Warriors' winning that game. You made no such acknowledgment. Ergo, you were wrong.

[papahoops]

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.   

CAR - win
BU - win
SMU - win
GAC - loss
SJU - win
UST - loss

5-5 - let's play!

Bolts on the railings need to be tightened up.

The Ray Brown/Carl Hipp combo is solid, and other pieces seem to be coming into place based on the recent west coast performance. Piperinsider's 5-5 projection at the halfway point is not a "pipedream". I will say that if they are playing well, I think Hamline could match up with UST as well as anyone in the league.