MBB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[piperinsider]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Van Sickle would not have been in my all-conference list. He is a very talented player who had some explosive games and some games where he just didn't even shoot. And my pick for an all-conference lock, Robinson, clearly has his number.

I was just pointing out how silly PI's remark was about scoring.

And how the F was Scott picked as MVP? He would be the easy choice for NEXT year...but this blows my mind. I'm absolutely boggled right now.

How is the fact that a player that didn't average double figures and wasn't among a leader in other stats not a good argument? Players with better numbers were left off the all-conference team.

I wouldn't have had Robinson on my team either. He made the defensive all-MIAC team. Period. McCoy would have been No. 16 on my list.

[Drake Palmer]

As most know, I'll err, umm, like the Tommies,  as I like most teams in the league, & I think very highly of Joe Scott's game, but he would not have been my choice for MVP.

[Drake Palmer]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Van Sickle would not have been in my all-conference list. He is a very talented player who had some explosive games and some games where he just didn't even shoot. And my pick for an all-conference lock, Robinson, clearly has his number.

I was just pointing out how silly PI's remark was about scoring.

And how the F was Scott picked as MVP? He would be the easy choice for NEXT year...but this blows my mind. I'm absolutely boggled right now.

How is the fact that a player that didn't average double figures and wasn't among a leader in other stats not a good argument? Players with better numbers were left off the all-conference team.

I wouldn't have had Robinson on my team either. He made the defensive all-MIAC team. Period. McCoy would have been No. 16 on my list.

So what are you saying PI?  The coaches picked 16 players & CSN selected 18 players.   Why do I get the sense a circular argument is coming

Keep in mind I was in favor of your boy - Hipp, getting the nod.  See my previous post.     

[Willy Wonka]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Van Sickle would not have been in my all-conference list. He is a very talented player who had some explosive games and some games where he just didn't even shoot. And my pick for an all-conference lock, Robinson, clearly has his number.

I was just pointing out how silly PI's remark was about scoring.

And how the F was Scott picked as MVP? He would be the easy choice for NEXT year...but this blows my mind. I'm absolutely boggled right now.

How is the fact that a player that didn't average double figures and wasn't among a leader in other stats not a good argument? Players with better numbers were left off the all-conference team.

Van Sickle = 10.5 PPG
McCoy = 8.4 PPG
Robinson = 7.6 PPG

So, what's your argument again?

And if you're a McCoy backer, how is he any more worthy than Van Sickle? He was a better defender, but he wasn't in the Top 30 in scoring, Top 20 in rebounding or Top 15 in blocks. He was first in the league in one statistical category, just like Van Sickle.

[Gacman]

Last time I checked, Van Sickle averaged a basket more than McCoy and Robinson.

While I would have only selected one of those three for the all-conference squad, that's a pretty lame argument, PI.

Here's a few more statistics to back up PI's argument:

In three games against the Tommies, Van Sickle had (1) 0 pts and 0 assists (this was the playoff game); (2) 6pts, 0 assists; and (3) 10 pts (on 3-9 shooting), 3 assists.

Against SJU in the playoffs he had 8 pts, 2 assists.

Against Carleton he had 7 pts, 0 assists.

Against Auggie, he had 6 pts, 2 assists

Against Concordia, he had 2 pts, 1 assist

Against Hamline, he had 2 pts, 0 assists

I would have taken Hipp, Fong and Schwartz over Van Sickle for all-conference.

Everyone has games where the numbers just aren't there for whatever reason.  Maybe its because they didn't shoot well, maybe the team they were playing decided to not let that person beat them, or maybe others on his team were having good games and that's where the shots came from. Either way with the three people you would have picked ahead of Van Sickle had equally bad games.

Schwartz
                               Points  Assists      from field      from 3
St. Olaf   L  59-71     4           2               2-9               0-5
Auggie    L  51-68     7           1               2-9              1-5
Gusties   L  62-68     6           4               2-13            1-8
Bethel     L  62-78     7          0                2-11            1-7
UST         L  47-82     6          2                3-13            0-7
GAC PL    L  68-71     6          5                1-9              1-5

Hipp

He had seven games of 8 points or less with the worst being against Augsburg where he had 0.

Fong

In ten games Fong was 42-140. That's not very good.

                        Season        Field goal %        3pt %
Schwartz                                 38.7                32.1   
Van Sickle                                47.2                46
Fong                                        39.8                 25.4


I guess I just have a hard time arguing with those stats. Hipp is the only one of your three that is hard to argue with considering where he ranked in a bunch of categories,
but HU already has Thrasher named to the All-Conference team and SJU had Burtzel as Drake Palmer pointed out. Congrats to all who made it on the AC team and as I said before someone has to get left off.

[miacsuperfan]

all-connie team is pretty interesting.     where is carl hipp?   he should be  there.  how about david olson instead of jon cassens? i thought by the middle of the year on he was a lot more to deal with for opposing teams than cassens.  i like cassens, but i'm not sure about all-con.  i have no problem with sickle on the team.  i saw him play four times this year and i was more than impressed with his play.  and wouldn't it be fun to see will wright play on a good team at some point?
how about two smu guys on the team?   holland over laugen?   i have a tough time with that one.   four st. thomas players is a bit much, but hey, they snapped the league so why not.  i know that the coaches don't have a quota to meet for reps from the conference champs---but i am guessing it weighs in to the decision.

much like it must have for the mvp voting.   strange.  very strange.  hey, joe scott is one of my favorite guys to watch.  but mvp?
in my mind there were two candidates for the award, zach johnson and tim madson.  but let's throw joe scott into the conversation as well, seeing how he did win the award.   

Let's compare:     FG%    3%   FT%  PPG  RPG   APG  SPG  A/TO 
         JS             49.1    41    70   13.4  3.1    1.8    1.6   1.6

         TM            45.5    38    89    18.9  3.8    2.7    1.2  1.5

         ZJ             44.2    32    75    22.8  6.2    2.7    1.1  1.0 

Now factor in PPG vs. playoff teams  JS (15.5)  TM (20.0)   ZJ (22.0)
                      Team's seed in tourn: JS (1)       TM (2)        ZJ (5)
                      Defense                    JS (3)       TM (4)      ZJ (4) -Max 5
                      Excitement to game    JS (5)      TM (5)        ZJ (4) - Max 5
                      Team would hurt w/o  JS (4)       TM (5)        ZJ (5) - Max 5

OK, so my last three ratings are subjective, but so is this board. 
so what does this mean?     i don't have a clue, but it just seems weird that joe scott won the award.  maybe nites explained why ZJ didn't win (attitude, on floor antics), but that doesn't explain madson finishing behind scott.  regardless, i---like wonka----am sorta boggled by the pick.  it would be fun to hear the order after scott---including nate alm's placement, who would have been my next pick.

[piperinsider]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Van Sickle would not have been in my all-conference list. He is a very talented player who had some explosive games and some games where he just didn't even shoot. And my pick for an all-conference lock, Robinson, clearly has his number.

I was just pointing out how silly PI's remark was about scoring.

And how the F was Scott picked as MVP? He would be the easy choice for NEXT year...but this blows my mind. I'm absolutely boggled right now.

How is the fact that a player that didn't average double figures and wasn't among a leader in other stats not a good argument? Players with better numbers were left off the all-conference team.

Van Sickle = 10.5 PPG
McCoy = 8.4 PPG
Robinson = 7.6 PPG

So, what's your argument again?

And if you're a McCoy backer, how is he any more worthy than Van Sickle? He was a better defender, but he wasn't in the Top 30 in scoring, Top 20 in rebounding or Top 15 in blocks. He was first in the league in one statistical category, just like Van Sickle.

Sorry, I meant to say that Carl Hipp deserved a spot. He has better numbers than the three you presented. I would replace him over Robinson. So, yes, Van Sickle would get the nod.

Whatever, doesn't matter, I'm off to Fort Myers for the forecast calls for 82 and sunny every day. 17 and snow a couple days I'm gone. Have fun and yes, go Tommies!

[TearDrop]

Last time I checked, Van Sickle averaged a basket more than McCoy and Robinson.

While I would have only selected one of those three for the all-conference squad, that's a pretty lame argument, PI.

I would have taken Hipp, Fong and Schwartz over Van Sickle for all-conference.

Here's my two cents on this:

The coaches felt compelled to take one player from each playoff team.  Van Sickle was the best (only legit) choice from the Gusties & Burtzel was the clear choice from the Johnnies.  (Johnnies' Schwartz struggled down the stretch.)

Considering SMU's record - 6-14 conference, I'm a little surprised the coaches went with two players Holland & Wright.

Yet they ignored Carl Hipp from Hamline who lead the league in blocked shots, was 8th in scoring @13.1ppg, & 5th in reb @9.1rpg. 

Fong didn't play the last 4-5 games of the season .

I understand the argument that they come from a below average team but is there really a question about whether BOTH of these players are in the top 15 talent wise in the MIAC?? Both of these "young men"  will more than likely top the 1,000 point mark as juniors and if they had any talent or size at all around them then they would win double the games without a doubt AND have better all-around stats. If the coaching staff can manage to bring in a good recruiting class and provide some help for these guys, and they can climb into the top 3 in the league then we will be discussing Mr. Wright for POY awards!! And yes, that is plural!!

On another note...

Good luck to the Tommies!! Make the miac proud!!

[VOJ]

Nothing against Lonnie, he's a good player and great defender, but All-Conference is not deserved for this young man.  And Van Sickle?  I can't believe he was voted in as well...  Unbelievable....

Hammy...fortunately you just a guest and I will treat this post as if you were some punk sounding off while scooping the loop in some small town...raising my head seeing you and thinking...he has a long way to go to grow up

Lonnie Robinson is possibly the best on ball defender, regardless of size, in MIAC, he always get the toughest matchup of the opponent and his overall athletic skills make him AN ALL CONFERENCE SELECTION, as a famous movie coach once said and I paraphrase there is more to basketball than shooting

Now onto Jesse Van Sickle...again you show how little you know about the conference, Van Sickle is the top offensive option at GAC, he is also a decent defender and was the top 3 point shooter...when he gets hot in a game, look out...he is also the guy that opposing defenses key on, like Fraase at CM. 

I was glad to Burtzel on the All-Conference team and hoped that Schwartz would be there, but understand why he was not...I am also happy that the coaches recognized the play of Andy Burns who will only get better and better at the point for the Js...

Now onto the POY controversy...the thought that Zorro's actions over his first 3.5 years may have cost him some votes is plausible...but Scott was the top player on the best team in the league, nuff said.  Scott averaged 13 points per game getting 27 min on average, Zorro played 34 min per game scoring 23 per game.  Zorro is the the top offensive threat on a team with 2 maybe 3 guys who can consistently score the bball, Scott is on a team with multiple weapons and his role is to lead the offense not be the offense like Johnson.  I would have tabbed Madson as my player of the year anyway, he impressed me the most when I saw him.

As Gacman said, someone is always left off...and I think Hipp deserved all-conference honors, his play down the stretch was key, guys you need to remember that the MIAC schedule is a grind, its worse than an NBA schedule at times and not every player will be able to bring it every game...which leads to up and down performances as some of you have hilighted.  There are a few guys you could change out to make room for Hipp on the team...Holland, Rosett, McCoy and Viau among them, but you can't look just at the stats.  These coaches break down so much tape getting ready for opponents, I think for the most part they made the right call.


Go Tommies...defend your house and make a run at the title...represent the MIAC!!

[Nites]

[
I guess I just have a hard time arguing with those stats. Hipp is the only one of your three that is hard to argue with considering where he ranked in a bunch of categories,
but HU already has Thrasher named to the All-Conference team and SJU had Burtzel as Drake Palmer pointed out. Congrats to all who made it on the AC team and as I said before someone has to get left off.

Gacman,

Fong missing the last 5 games probably does disqualify him and he's a FY, so Van Sickle probably would rank above him.  However, Hipp should have been ahead of Van Sickle.  Schwartz slumped at the end of the year so I'm not sure he is deserving of all-conference, but I would have selected him over Van Sickle.  He topped Van Sickle in scoring, rebounding, assists, steals and blocks (although the differences were insignificant in some categories).  Still, a close call and VS probably got the nod because SJU had Burtzel.  Then again, you're biased because Van Sickle was a teammate, and my opinion is pretty much worthless because I haven't seen either player play!   

Welcome aboard.  What's your take on the POY selection?

[columbianmaffia]

im ready for a weekend full of basketball...2 high school games tonight...gophers tomorrow...and mens league on sunday...plus what ever i can find on tv if the boombalahties leave me alone for a few minutes

[Drake Palmer]

If we needed further proof that UST's SID Gene McGivern follows our board, check this excerpt from his latest blog: One Game Season

There are some similarities in these senior-led record-setting Tommie teams, but one huge difference. That team of 15 years ago played in the pre-internet era. There was no national poll, no chat rooms, no websites, no video clips (a little radio) and far less distractions.

And, then there's this...

These Tommies can't re-do the 2008 NCAA playoff game or change any other postseason results of past UST teams. They have no burden to prove anything for the MIAC. They don't need to make history, and don't need to dismantle the entire 15-team bracket. They don't need to prove any bloggers wrong or meet any high expectations.

Well, various participants on this board may disagree with Gene's last comments (ahem Willy, VOJ  ) but I think most of us would agree on this:

MIAC UNITED




GO UST!!!

[Gacman]

It's true that I am biased in this situation. Numbers get hard to compare when talking about GAC this year because there was so much balance. Actually unprecidented really. To be honest Ryan McPartland was probably our most consistent player and could have easily gotten the nod over Van Sickle. As for player of the year, how the race didn't come down to Madson and Johnson is beyond me. I respect VOJ's opinion that the best player on the best team got it, but the other two players we are talking about are coming from playoff teams, good teams. If you take scott off of UST I think that they might still win conference handly. They are that deep. You take any of the other two off there teams and they don't make the playoffs. People can make the arguement that the came from teams that had less balance or less scoring options than UST which is why Scott averaged less per game, there are other players on other teams in this conference that had the same amount of scoring options as bethel and Carleton but didn't rise to the same level as Madson or Johnson. I mean Madson single handly beat some teams down the stretch including us at Bethel where he outscored Van Sickle's best performance of the year. You had to gameplan more for Johnson than any other player in the conference, period.  So it should have gone to Johnson, but if you argue that they finished to low in the standings than give it to Madson, who's team finished second in the regular and post season.

[
I guess I just have a hard time arguing with those stats. Hipp is the only one of your three that is hard to argue with considering where he ranked in a bunch of categories,
but HU already has Thrasher named to the All-Conference team and SJU had Burtzel as Drake Palmer pointed out. Congrats to all who made it on the AC team and as I said before someone has to get left off.

Gacman,

Fong missing the last 5 games probably does disqualify him and he's a FY, so Van Sickle probably would rank above him.  However, Hipp should have been ahead of Van Sickle.  Schwartz slumped at the end of the year so I'm not sure he is deserving of all-conference, but I would have selected him over Van Sickle.  He topped Van Sickle in scoring, rebounding, assists, steals and blocks (although the differences were insignificant in some categories).  Still, a close call and VS probably got the nod because SJU had Burtzel.  Then again, you're biased because Van Sickle was a teammate, and my opinion is pretty much worthless because I haven't seen either player play!   

Welcome aboard.  What's your take on the POY selection?

[columbianmaffia]

i liked that article by the UST Sid except for this part...

"These Tommies can't re-do the 2008 NCAA playoff game or change any other postseason results of past UST teams. They have no burden to prove anything for the MIAC. They don't need to make history, and don't need to dismantle the entire 15-team bracket. They don't need to prove any bloggers wrong or meet any high expectations.

They just need to line up with Aurora on Friday and give it their best for 40 minutes."

to me this just sounds like he expects UST to lose and is trying to let everyone down softly before it happens...i want UST to win...i expect them to win...and they should win...they do need to live up to their expectations...else they will just join the t-wolves as another mn basketball team that cant seem to make it out of the first round and to make it worse they have been expected to

[sumander]

Mose, must be hanging out at the Shoe already. Haven't seen a post from him in quite a while.

Cmob, Tubby's boys gonna get the skunk bears tomorrow? If they do, are they in the Dance?