MBB: USA South Conference

[notamensa]

matt coleman, where are you?!

[exmonarchsid]

I could not agree with you more, SU97... Jeremiah Lawrence may just be the best post player in the USA South with his aggressiveness and tenacity around the basket and in the paint, but where is the support? That, in my mind, is what has kept Shenandoah from getting over the hump and winning the USA South. When I was at Methodist when the Monarchs were making the run of three straight conference championships and two straight NCAA Tournament appearances, those teams had tremendous offensive balance... A different player would come up big each game, and that's why Methodist was so successful during that run. The same was true last season when Averett came out of nowhere and advanced to the championship game - they had balance. That's what it takes to be a championship team.

[notamensa]

I could not agree with you more, SU97... Jeremiah Lawrence may just be the best post player in the USA South with his aggressiveness and tenacity around the basket and in the paint, but where is the support? That, in my mind, is what has kept Shenandoah from getting over the hump and winning the USA South. When I was at Methodist when the Monarchs were making the run of three straight conference championships and two straight NCAA Tournament appearances, those teams had tremendous offensive balance... A different player would come up big each game, and that's why Methodist was so successful during that run. The same was true last season when Averett came out of nowhere and advanced to the championship game - they had balance. That's what it takes to be a championship team.

how do you win three conference championships and only get 2 ncaa appearances out of it? isnt winning the conference an automatic qualifier to the dance?

[narch]

how do you win three conference championships and only get 2 ncaa appearances out of it? isnt winning the conference an automatic qualifier to the dance?

the conference tournament establishes the aq...the monarchs were co-regular season champs with cnu in '03, but did not win the tourney and did not get a bid to the dance

[pride1fan]

so

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

This will be the only nice thing I will ever say about CNU.  I don't think you can ever question a player's intensity.  They are a great offensive team and they are obviously intense on offense, or just better on offense and not good on defense. Good teams, consistent teams, whatever are either really good on offense or really good on defense.  If they are good in one catergory the ones that win championships are the ones that are about average in another catergory.  (I know narch will say I am comparing apple's to oranges, but hear me out)

Take the last couple of world series winners. It seems to follow this trend where the winner was great hitting team, but a average pitching team or vise versa. (Believe it or not the cardinals were average in both) ERA and Batting Avg ranks

2005 White Sox-A Top pitching team (4th), average hitting team (17th)
2004 Red Sox-A Great hitting team(2nd), average pitching team (11th)
2003  Marlins A average pitching team(14th), average hitting team(13th) (another average)
2002 Angels A great pitching team (4th) and a great hitting team (1st) (It took them seven games to win that one....hmmm)
2001 Diamondbacks great pitching (4th) better then average hitting (9th)
2000 Yankees better then average hitting(9th) and pitching (16th)

Its just a correlation not fact. This my theory and as you know I am full of crazy ideas.

I think being really good on one side of the ball is fine but you better be about average on the other side. I think and this is just me, but if you are really good on both sides, a bad game on either side will hurt a team.  For instance the 2001 Seattle Mariners 116-46 #1 ERA and #2 B avg.  They didn't even get out of the first round.  I think average allows for lee-way on either side.  I hope that makes sense.  It will all be in my book at b&n, which I will be signing today only in greensboro. (No I don't have a book really.)

Just take a look at every sport NFL, NHL, NBA, College Sports, you will see it.

[notamensa]

I don't think you can ever question a player's intensity. 

yes i can, and yes i do. you have to see it to understand. here is an example from our last home game; captains with the ball at the offensive end, the other team makes a steal and two of their guys streak up the court on a gfast break. theo baker goes after them and makes a GREAT, GREAT block of the layup. where are the rest of the captains? they are waiting at the other end of the court so they can be in position to go back on OFFENSE. they WATCHED. no one is there to help theo, so another cnu opponent is credited with an offensive rebound and a score.

[narch]

Good teams, consistent teams, whatever are either really good on offense or really good on defense.  If they are good in one catergory the ones that win championships are the ones that are about average in another catergory.

i don't necessarily disagree, but i would like to point out that if you were to apply this theory to the current usasac landscape, your pride are in trouble:

using conference only games the pride rank last in scoring offense (71.7 ppg), and ft's made, (su97...note that i didn't say dead last) while ranking a pedestrian 4th of 7 in ft% and fg% - they do rank 3rd in 3 fg % and 1st in 3 fg made, but on the whole, they are a below average offensive team especially when you consider the only stat that REALLY matters is scoring offense...now that gc defense is suffocating, leading the league by a wide margin in scoring defense (63.3 ppg) and leading the league in fg% defense, 3 fg% defense and ranking 2nd in steals, 3rd in reb margin and 4th in blocks - according to your theory, gc can be a good, consistent team but not a championship team because they are good in one catergory but not even average in the other catergory ...we'll see if your theory is correct...i've always thought defense wins championships, in every sport

what are your thoughts pride1fan?  i always look forward to your thoughtful and in depth commentary on these issues...i'm sure you've got another nugget of wisdom ready for us all

[old_lion]

* What else do you need?

It's hard to believe those guys have lost 7 games. What's the deal?

How about some Freakin' DEFENSE...maybe some more rebounds, especially when the opponent is significantly shorter! How about...going to the ball, blocking out, steals, being aggressive without the ball?

Need more?

No, I guess that's a reasonable explanation. Sounds like you're saying that basically, it's a lack of effort.

Coach Woolum has been there for several years, hasn't he? With their recent track record and a veteran coach, it's hard to believe he can't get such a talented bunch to play hard ...

Past Records
2006 20-8 (9-3)
2005 18-8 (8-4)
2004 15-11 (9-5)
2003 24-5 (12-2)

But I guess that must be the explanation ...

[CNU85]

not sure what it's a lack of.....other than a lack of defensive stats. One theory I have is that during one of the first games of the year (not sure if what the first game) CNU's big guys got into foul trouble early. Since the bench is not too deep with big guys, I think they might be a little too cautious in not wanting to get into foul trouble. Hence, the comment from Mensa "where are you Matt Coleman"!!!

Look back a few pages and see my post where I listed a bunch of NCAA D3 rankings in various categories. It CLEARLY shows CNU is very good on Offense and VERY bad on defense.

I doubt there is one or two specifics you can point to as to WHY.....it's more of a "it is what it is" situation. I can remember year after year various posters to this forum comment about a "lack of offensive rebounds", "follow your shot", etc. Since that has impacted teams over many years with diffeent players, you could come to the conclusion that offensive rebounds are not emphasized by the coaching staff. But even that doesn't make sense. How many good coaching staffs win as many games as CNU over the years with the attititude of, "ok guys, go back out there, play hard, and eh don't worry about offensive boards"?

The good part about it is this - I posted the comments about not playing D and there is now about 2 pages on this board of basketball chat! Kinda neat how that works.

I hope I have a typo or two above....just to keep Narch engaged!! (uh oh...here comes a witty comment about girlfriends and a wife and kids, etc) 

[notamensa]

* What else do you need?

It's hard to believe those guys have lost 7 games. What's the deal?

How about some Freakin' DEFENSE...maybe some more rebounds, especially when the opponent is significantly shorter! How about...going to the ball, blocking out, steals, being aggressive without the ball?

Need more?

No, I guess that's a reasonable explanation. Sounds like you're saying that basically, it's a lack of effort.

Coach Woolum has been there for several years, hasn't he? With their recent track record and a veteran coach, it's hard to believe he can't get such a talented bunch to play hard ...

Past Records
2006 20-8 (9-3)
2005 18-8 (8-4)
2004 15-11 (9-5)
2003 24-5 (12-2)

But I guess that must be the explanation ...

cnu85 might not come right out and say it, but i will. a lack of effort IS the problem. i saw the team we trotted out there last year. i was IN AWE if the team we had last year. and you know what? they are almost the same guys. we lost romeo, who was very good, but I think that theo has stepped in very admirably to replace him. theo is NOT who im saying lacks effort this year. something has happened to these guys, and whatever that something was, it has caused them to repeatedly "phone it in" on game day this year.

[notamensa]

Since the bench is not too deep with big guys, I think they might be a little too cautious in not wanting to get into foul trouble. Hence, the comment from Mensa "where are you Matt Coleman"!!!

being big (tall) is only a small part of it. matt coleman played his heart out every time he stepped out onto the court. relentlessly. he had guts and courage, and that more than made up for any lack of talent he might have. i want him back because his on-court work ethic might rub off on the guys we have remaining.

[notamensa]

Take the last couple of world series winners. It seems to follow this trend where the winner was great hitting team, but a average pitching team or vise versa. (Believe it or not the cardinals were average in both) ERA and Batting Avg ranks

2005 White Sox-A Top pitching team (4th), average hitting team (17th)
2004 Red Sox-A Great hitting team(2nd), average pitching team (11th)
2003  Marlins A average pitching team(14th), average hitting team(13th) (another average)
2002 Angels A great pitching team (4th) and a great hitting team (1st) (It took them seven games to win that one....hmmm)
2001 Diamondbacks great pitching (4th) better then average hitting (9th)
2000 Yankees better then average hitting(9th) and pitching (16th)

Its just a correlation not fact. This my theory and as you know I am full of crazy ideas.

I think being really good on one side of the ball is fine but you better be about average on the other side. I think and this is just me, but if you are really good on both sides, a bad game on either side will hurt a team.  For instance the 2001 Seattle Mariners 116-46 #1 ERA and #2 B avg.  They didn't even get out of the first round.  I think average allows for lee-way on either side.  I hope that makes sense. 

i think someone really, really misses the boys of summer. does "PrideSportBBallGuy" really mean "PrideSportBaseBallGuy?

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

Take the last couple of world series winners. It seems to follow this trend where the winner was great hitting team, but a average pitching team or vise versa. (Believe it or not the cardinals were average in both) ERA and Batting Avg ranks

2005 White Sox-A Top pitching team (4th), average hitting team (17th)
2004 Red Sox-A Great hitting team(2nd), average pitching team (11th)
2003  Marlins A average pitching team(14th), average hitting team(13th) (another average)
2002 Angels A great pitching team (4th) and a great hitting team (1st) (It took them seven games to win that one....hmmm)
2001 Diamondbacks great pitching (4th) better then average hitting (9th)
2000 Yankees better then average hitting(9th) and pitching (16th)

Its just a correlation not fact. This my theory and as you know I am full of crazy ideas.

I think being really good on one side of the ball is fine but you better be about average on the other side. I think and this is just me, but if you are really good on both sides, a bad game on either side will hurt a team.  For instance the 2001 Seattle Mariners 116-46 #1 ERA and #2 B avg.  They didn't even get out of the first round.  I think average allows for lee-way on either side.  I hope that makes sense. 

i think someone really, really misses the boys of summer. does "PrideSportBBallGuy" really mean "PrideSportBaseBallGuy?

nota-
Incorrect its not baseball.  Incorrect I don't miss it. I will watch my team play (The Orioles) but will refuse to go see another game at camden yards until Peter Angelos sells the team.  A rumor went by that Cal Ripken Jr, wanted to buy the team and Angelos the worst owner in baseball says he's not selling.  I guess 8 or 9 or 10 straight losing seasons is really good these days.

Narch-I always say that defense wins championships.  So based on that you think gc will in it.

Though the St. Louis Rams did win the Super Bowl without a defense.

[notamensa]

its too bad that no one on the usasac board is talking about top-25 anymore. im sure that wont change since we all seem to be beating each other up in the conference schedule. i guess we will have to break back into the top-25 by way of the ncaa tourney.