MBB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Jimmy Chitwood]

You play hard as an athlete because you know thats what youre supposed to do. If you need a coach to remind you of that, then youre not much of a player to begin with. The game was about execution, not effort. Carroll did it, UST did not.

Furthermore, at no point was I questioning the Tommies effort.  That was never a point of mine in any post.  I fully believe they put all they had into the game (i.e. Schnettler staying on the floor all night).  I never questioned the Tommies effort, as I know they wanted the game as much as Carroll.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I am not exactly sure how to copy and insert quotes from previous posts, so that is why the above post didn't turn out like I thought.  Also, I apologize for the long posts, but having been absent from the board all season, I have gotten diarrhea of the mouth. 

[ustbumkneez]

JC, I dont think I missed your point. And I wasnt only responding to your post, though yours put the most blame on the coaching staff. If I was directly responding to you, your handle wasnt at the beginning. I was merely pointing out a perspective that was void from the board, and in conflict with what some posters had said (yes, you were in this mix). I will say this, that if some of the players (re: bench) on the Tommies were instilled with more confidence throughout the season, then I think they would have played better in the Carroll game and could have provided more support to the "Big 3", which I think is in line with some of your points.

When it was all said in done, the Tommies lost because of execution, and more importantly exectution of THEIR OWN game plan.

I still disagree with your assertion that the Tommies game plan was flawed. You know that, I told you when we left the game. I agree with you that coaches are responsible for helping their team mentally prepare, but I say that is done by providing your squad with a solid game plan and reminding them of what they are capable of (plus, the idea that you wont let them down as a coach-that youve done your homework, and that the game wont be lost by your decisions). Its not by screaming and yelling and high fiveing, its by execution. I cant make that any more clear than Ive already done. Again, Carroll did it, UST did not. Intangibles make a difference, sure, but they arent why teams win ball games-buckets do.

This is why there are cinderallas and teams with inferior talent making playoff runs in all divisions of collegiate hoops.  This is why there are upsets.  So when Bucknell, George Mason and other small scale teams beat major conference teams in the NCAA tourney, are you telling me that it is simply because these smaller teams have coaches that better understand X's and O's???  I seldom think that is the case.  Rather, these teams that should have no business beating these 1 and 2 seeds are winning because the coaches have installed a mentallity in them that they CAN win.  A positive attitude creates confidence and confidence is an intangible that can single-handedly put a team in the win column.

These teams win simply because they believe? Doubtful. If that were the case, no one would win-because both sides are playing the game with the notion that they can win. Itd be a stalemate of desire (which sounds like a late night Cinemax title), not an athletic competition. Nobody steps on the court with the idea that they cant win, otherwise they wouldnt have bothered showing up (especially in the NCAA tournament, where they have already EARNED a berth to be there through winning a conference tournament or regular season championship). Im telling you teams like Bucknell and George Mason win because they execute. They understand what they have to do to win, go out and do exactly that, and maybe catch some breaks along the way. George Mason won in the tournament because they played their game throughout, stuck to what they knew, and executed that to as perfect a rate as I think any team in a NCAA (at any level) Tournament ever has. Did they believe they could win? Of course, but then again, so did Duke and UConn. So we cant say confidence and a "can win" attitude will get you far, because it comes down to one word, mixed in with all those other factors (talent, coaching, etc): execution. (sorry, it just felt like the right ending  )

[columbianmaffia]

chitwood

why did you wait so long to come out of the woodwork?

would have been nice to have ya around during the regular season for another perspective....stick around sonny

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Bumkneez,

First of all I am getting a kick out of the fact that we are debating this through posts, as this could easily be done in person, as it already has.  But given the history between you and I of agreeing on things, it is probably much more civil to approach this disagreement on here.  At least we can finish a sentence and start a new one without putting our earflaps down and not hearing the other person speak. 

With that being said Kneez, I want to briefly (you all laugh, but I promise this will be short) touch on a couple points of your last post.  You say that intangibles make a difference, but buckets win ball games.  Obviously it is the buckets that put points on the board.  I think we can agree on that, right?  However, before a bucket can be scored, there has to be a few key factors that determine how and if a bucket is scored.  We have both agreed that execution is a huge part of whether or not a bucket goes in.  There are also variables such as endurance, mental state, desire, that also are important in whether a not a team is in position to score a basket. 

My point was that excitment and energy can significantly influence execution of the game plan, which in turn results in buckets.  For those visual learners out there, it goes somthing like this:

Intangibles (see above) + Game Plan + Exectution = Buckets (a.k.a points). 

Now there are probably a few more things that you can think of that belong in that equation, but those are the basics.  However, the point that I am trying to make is that buckets are the final result.  They are contingent on the preceeding variables.  Without the intangibles and other components, there would be no buckets.  I chose to isolate the Intangibles portion of this equation.  If you zoom out and take a look at the whole equation, your points fit nicely in the summation of the entire equation.  I am simply zooming in on one aspect:  Intangibles. 

While I agree that most teams believe they can win, there are many times that players lose their mental focus and can get caught up in the hype of a given game.  Lack of focus and second-guessing can destroy a team, no matter the level of talent.  I think you should put more of a premium on excitment and mental vision.  I think a lot of times teams doom themselves by either losing mental focus or becoming overly confident. 

In essence, my point is unrefutable, so please stop trying, as I will just keep coming back harder and stronger (and my fingers hurt from typing so much, so please don't force me to keep writing).  Actually maybe we can settle our differences this weekend over a highly contested NCAA Football showdown on PS2, followed up by the consumption of spirits, proceeded by bad decisions and questionable tactics. 

[Willy Wonka]

With that being said Kneez, I want to briefly (you all laugh, but I promise this will be short) touch on a couple points of your last post.

This seems like a good time to draw a parallel to a favorite movie of mine...

Briefly? Inconceiveable!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Chitwood's stuff needs a distiller, or maybe an editor. I've got to believe he can argue a point in less than 25 paragraphs, but there is not yet proof to back this up.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Columbian Mofia,

Now that I am aware of just how exciting "posting up" can be, I really wish I would have gotten on here earlier.  Bumkneez started posting on here during last season, and everytime he was over at my house I said that I would get involved with it.  I really wanted to start posting after the loss to Lawrence last year, as I was worked up and ready to start getting nasty towards the Lawrence fans.  So I told myself this year that I would get on here early, and I did.  I think I lasted a week or so and then just got bored with it.  But now that I realize just how much time it takes out of my day to get these posts up and stay in tune with what is being said, I was probably better off being MIA.  Right now I am using these posts as a means of therapy for getting back on my feet after the Tommies loss.

[Nites]

Bumkneez,

First of all I am getting a kick out of the fact that we are debating this through posts, as this could easily be done in person, as it already has.  But given the history between you and I of agreeing on things, it is probably much more civil to approach this disagreement on here.  At least we can finish a sentence and start a new one without putting our earflaps down and not hearing the other person speak. 

With that being said Kneez, I want to briefly (you all laugh, but I promise this will be short) touch on a couple points of your last post.  You say that intangibles make a difference, but buckets win ball games.  Obviously it is the buckets that put points on the board.  I think we can agree on that, right?  However, before a bucket can be scored, there has to be a few key factors that determine how and if a bucket is scored.  We have both agreed that execution is a huge part of whether or not a bucket goes in.  There are also variables such as endurance, mental state, desire, that also are important in whether a not a team is in position to score a basket. 

My point was that excitment and energy can significantly influence execution of the game plan, which in turn results in buckets.  For those visual learners out there, it goes somthing like this:

Intangibles (see above) + Game Plan + Exectution = Buckets (a.k.a points). 

Now there are probably a few more things that you can think of that belong in that equation, but those are the basics.  However, the point that I am trying to make is that buckets are the final result.  They are contingent on the preceeding variables.  Without the intangibles and other components, there would be no buckets.  I chose to isolate the Intangibles portion of this equation.  If you zoom out and take a look at the whole equation, your points fit nicely in the summation of the entire equation.  I am simply zooming in on one aspect:  Intangibles. 

While I agree that most teams believe they can win, there are many times that players lose their mental focus and can get caught up in the hype of a given game.  Lack of focus and second-guessing can destroy a team, no matter the level of talent.  I think you should put more of a premium on excitment and mental vision.  I think a lot of times teams doom themselves by either losing mental focus or becoming overly confident. 

In essence, my point is unrefutable, so please stop trying, as I will just keep coming back harder and stronger (and my fingers hurt from typing so much, so please don't force me to keep writing).  Actually maybe we can settle our differences this weekend over a highly contested NCAA Football showdown on PS2, followed up by the consumption of spirits, proceeded by bad decisions and questionable tactics. 

You call that short?  I guess that means I only have to make 1 trip to the little boys room before I can finish reading the post.  Long ones I have to go twice.   

[Gregory Sager]

Well hopefully Winona will be able to keep the streak alive and do Minnesota proud. 

.. or Wisconsin, since the bulk of the Winona State rotation consists of Cheeseheads, just like last year. And the big boy in the middle who threw down that filthy YouTube dunk, John Smith, is an Illinoisian from Chicago's northwest suburbs.

.... and where is Winona?  Oh yeah, it's still in Minnesota, right?  Or did it get moved to Wisconsin, or maybe Illinois?   

Did I say otherwise?

In fact, I said that there's nothing wrong with thinking that Winona State can "do Minnesotans proud." Pride, like all emotions, is highly subjective and is dependent upon the ideosyncracies of the person who possesses it. Heck, there's nothing to stop you from taking pride in Hofstra women's lacrosse or Dickinson field hockey if that's what makes your socks go up and down. I simply pointed out the facts about the WSU roster and the contributions of various Warriors.

And I don't think that the D1 mercenaries who play for Florida or any other big-time school are really germane to the discussion.

[Nites]

Did I say otherwise?

In fact, I said that there's nothing wrong with thinking that Winona State can "do Minnesotans proud." Pride, like all emotions, is highly subjective and is dependent upon the ideosyncracies of the person who possesses it. Heck, there's nothing to stop you from taking pride in Hofstra women's lacrosse or Dickinson field hockey if that's what makes your socks go up and down. I simply pointed out the facts about the WSU roster and the contributions of various Warriors.

And I don't think that the D1 mercenaries who play for Florida or any other big-time school are really germane to the discussion.

Oh, I know.  I was just jerking your chain.     On the relevancy of the D-1 to D-II comparison, I would wager that there isn't that much difference in that a very high percentage of the athletes at good D-II schools picked the school first for the athletics and then the academics.  Of the kids on the Winona State basketball roster, how many do you think picked the school for the academics and not for basketball program?

In any event, I think we both agree that Winona has a heck of a team.  It will be interesting to see if they can repeat.

[Gregory Sager]

Oh, I know.  I was just jerking your chain.     On the relevancy of the D-1 to D-II comparison, I would wager that there isn't that much difference in that a very high percentage of the athletes at good D-II schools picked the school first for the athletics and then the academics.  Of the kids on the Winona State basketball roster, how many do you think picked the school for the academics and not for basketball program?

Ohhh, man ... not sure I want to answer that one. I plead the Fifth.

[ustbumkneez]

Sumander, considering you saw the Johnnies game against Point on Saturday, I am curious to hear how you think El-Amin and Woldeslassie match up in terms of quicks. I think its safe to say Abe is the quickest guy in the MIAC, and from what I saw in the WIAC this year, El-Amin would get the title there. I have my opinion, but am interested to hear what someone else who has seen the two play this year thinks.

[VOJ]

I know u didn't direct it to me...but for my two cents Abe is quicker...El-Amin is smoother but I think Abe is a little quicker, but they play in different offenses, El Amin was not driving very much while Abe consistently penetrated against the J's and made the most spectacular play I saw all year...a driving lay-up and then sliding into the endzone stands at MAC in the J's and Scots first meeting of the year...

[sumander]

Kneez, I saw each of them one time. From that limited sample I would have to agree with VOJ. I think Abe is a little faster, of course i think we are splitting hairs, because both of them are extremely quick. I also agree with VOJ, El-Amin is smoother or more polished than Abe. I think he brings more to the table than Abe does, as far as an all around game goes.

[columbianmaffia]

i didnt know aberham lincoln was that fast or even alive!?! and i didnt know kahlid el-amin had any college elligibility left