Empire 8

[Ethelred the Unready]

Ethelred you got me..... tough getting old, I have no idea why I left out my sign off, I guess I'll blame work........I don't know but to change course a little, I saw the Chase seeds. I think Naz is a little over-rated. Unless their early season woe's are over. They were on fire against Stevens, and who knows if that was just a one game deal or have they turned the corner. They still have that no "D" look to them. The Chase is going to turn over a lot of stones....... By next week we should have a good feel for the East region...But what do I know   

Where did you see the Chase seedings?

[Bombers798891]

Couple of points from different posters to address:

1) Good point that the Knicks didn't run their offense through their PG but through Ewing. Here's the thing though. Someone had to be there to get Ewing the ball. Ewing couldn't do it himself. Carson's not going to bring the ball up, shake a defender and pop a three on his own. Someone else has to bring it up, get him the ball in a position to score. 

2) While Burton isn't the only guy on the Bombers who can score, part of the reason Leahy gets so many open looks is because you have to watch out for Burton. Same with Bostic. When you play the Bombers, you're not trying to shut down Leahy or Bostic. You're trying to shut down Burton.

3) I've never liked the "He leads all of the divisions" in some stat argument. Stephanie Cleary of IC led all of the NCAA in steals one season, and I'm talking women and men. What does that mean though? That she was the best defender in the country? God no. She played against some teams that would probably lose by 20 to a good high school team. More doesn't equal better once you start crossing divisions. Dominant D-III players always look a little better because there's not a lot of elite competition. Look at Elmira. This team won 6 games in three seasons. You don't see that in D-IA, and if you do, it's not from major conferences. I don't see Nate Kmic getting any "He's the best RB in the country" talk because he had more yards than anyone else. You'd take him over a Shon Greene or Javon Ringer?

4) I'm not sure how we can give Carson credit for RIT being an unexpected 5-0 in the E8 and not give the same credit to Burton for the Bombers having the best start and highest ranking in team history. Ithaca was supposed to be good, yes, but not THIS good. Did anyone else peg them at 11-0? Doubtful. #12 in the country?

5) This may seem a little unfair, but honestly, how many D-III schools have a legitimate big men? Carson is 6-6, 240 according to the RIT site. How many guys are that big and get significant playing time? (Not counting the 310 pound kid at SJF who apparently never plays) I mean, based on size alone, Carson's got an advantage, simply because D-III lacks a lot of true big men

[Ethelred the Unready]

Couple of points from different posters to address:

1) Good point that the Knicks didn't run their offense through their PG but through Ewing. Here's the thing though. Someone had to be there to get Ewing the ball. Ewing couldn't do it himself. Carson's not going to bring the ball up, shake a defender and pop a three on his own. Someone else has to bring it up, get him the ball in a position to score. 

2) While Burton isn't the only guy on the Bombers who can score, part of the reason Leahy gets so many open looks is because you have to watch out for Burton. Same with Bostic. When you play the Bombers, you're not trying to shut down Leahy or Bostic. You're trying to shut down Burton.

3) I've never liked the "He leads all of the divisions" in some stat argument. Stephanie Cleary of IC led all of the NCAA in steals one season, and I'm talking women and men. What does that mean though? That she was the best defender in the country? God no. She played against some teams that would probably lose by 20 to a good high school team. More doesn't equal better once you start crossing divisions. Dominant D-III players always look a little better because there's not a lot of elite competition. Look at Elmira. This team won 6 games in three seasons. You don't see that in D-IA, and if you do, it's not from major conferences. I don't see Nate Kmic getting any "He's the best RB in the country" talk because he had more yards than anyone else. You'd take him over a Shon Greene or Javon Ringer?

4) I'm not sure how we can give Carson credit for RIT being an unexpected 5-0 in the E8 and not give the same credit to Burton for the Bombers having the best start and highest ranking in team history. Ithaca was supposed to be good, yes, but not THIS good. Did anyone else peg them at 11-0? Doubtful. #12 in the country?

5) This may seem a little unfair, but honestly, how many D-III schools have a legitimate big men? Carson is 6-6, 240 according to the RIT site. How many guys are that big and get significant playing time? (Not counting the 310 pound kid at SJF who apparently never plays) I mean, based on size alone, Carson's got an advantage, simply because D-III lacks a lot of true big men

Isn't that kind of like saying Burton enjoys an unfair advantage because he's a teriffic shooter and the DIII teams around here play defense like my dead Aunt Martha or Pedrito de Portugal?

[FROMAFAR]

Ethelred..
Mea Culpa! I didn't see seedings, and shouldn't have referred to seeds, it was banter amongst some RIT and Stevens guys... their seed opinions, told you I was getting old, just goes to show you, what do I know 

[Ethelred the Unready]

Ethelred..
Mea Culpa! I didn't see seedings, and shouldn't have referred to seeds, it was banter amongst some RIT and Stevens guys... their seed opinions, told you I was getting old, just goes to show you, what do I know 

Damn!  Had my heart beating just a little faster there for a minute.  Nothing quite like the Chase.  Was new to it last year and am a believer.  I hear UR will miss the dinner and seeding announcement as they are coming back from a game at NYU, so as soon as anyone hears anything, I'd appreciate a post.

[Nosyor]

Couple of points from different posters to address:

1) Good point that the Knicks didn't run their offense through their PG but through Ewing. Here's the thing though. Someone had to be there to get Ewing the ball. Ewing couldn't do it himself. Carson's not going to bring the ball up, shake a defender and pop a three on his own. Someone else has to bring it up, get him the ball in a position to score. 

2) While Burton isn't the only guy on the Bombers who can score, part of the reason Leahy gets so many open looks is because you have to watch out for Burton. Same with Bostic. When you play the Bombers, you're not trying to shut down Leahy or Bostic. You're trying to shut down Burton.

3) I've never liked the "He leads all of the divisions" in some stat argument. Stephanie Cleary of IC led all of the NCAA in steals one season, and I'm talking women and men. What does that mean though? That she was the best defender in the country? God no. She played against some teams that would probably lose by 20 to a good high school team. More doesn't equal better once you start crossing divisions. Dominant D-III players always look a little better because there's not a lot of elite competition. Look at Elmira. This team won 6 games in three seasons. You don't see that in D-IA, and if you do, it's not from major conferences. I don't see Nate Kmic getting any "He's the best RB in the country" talk because he had more yards than anyone else. You'd take him over a Shon Greene or Javon Ringer?

4) I'm not sure how we can give Carson credit for RIT being an unexpected 5-0 in the E8 and not give the same credit to Burton for the Bombers having the best start and highest ranking in team history. Ithaca was supposed to be good, yes, but not THIS good. Did anyone else peg them at 11-0? Doubtful. #12 in the country?

5) This may seem a little unfair, but honestly, how many D-III schools have a legitimate big men? Carson is 6-6, 240 according to the RIT site. How many guys are that big and get significant playing time? (Not counting the 310 pound kid at SJF who apparently never plays) I mean, based on size alone, Carson's got an advantage, simply because D-III lacks a lot of true big men

Bombers I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with a few of your points. 

1) Just because someone else brings the ball up does not mean he relys on other people to get the ball in a scoring position (although it definately helps).  I remember a coach once telling some big men that I have played with, "So the point won't give you the ball, what are you going to do?" after no response the coach said, "You're going to attack the rim and get the ball."

Currently Carson is averaging about 5 offensive rebounds a game.  That's 5 possessions where he obtains the ball adjacent to the hoop (essentially either a foul or bucket).  He isn't a player like Carmelo Anthony that gets no rebounds and needs someone to pass him the ball to score.  If you don't pass Carson the ball, he'll find a way to get it in his hands and put it in the hoop.

2) I'm not sure your point with how teams gear in on stopping Burton.  Of course they do, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate on Burton and Carson.  I think it is a moot point and the focus of every coach's gameplan is to "slow" down Burton or Carson.  If the argument is who makes their teammates better, it is very difficult to say.

On one hand, Burton always has the ball and his hand which means he can easily find his teammates.  It is very easy to see how a point guard has a positive effect on the rest of the players on his team.

On the other hand, Carson doesn't always have the ball in his hand which is sometimes as dangerous as when it is in his hand.  What I mean by that is that the amount of attention he commands at all times can open up the floor for the rest of his teammates.  When Carson doesn't have the ball you need to have one defender in front denying and a weak side defender 1 to 2 steps further in then normal.  This creates additional time for a shooter on the weakside to get his shot off.  When Carson does have the ball...well, I'm not really sure what you do.  You could double team and leave someone open for a shot or you can play him straight up and hope he doesn't foul out every single one of your big men.  My point is that it isn't as readily identifiable to see the affect Carson has on the rest of his teammates.  That is why I implore you all to watch how RIT plays with and without Carson on the floor.  Do the same with Ithaca and Burton.

4) I think much of this point has to do with last year.  Ithaca finished first in the conference and returned everyone of value.  Is it really that much of a surprise they are 11-0?  Not to me...yes I think 10-1 or 9-2 would be more realistic of a projection, but are we really that surprised this team is winning all their games?  RIT on teh other hand finished 6th last year and lost a few legitmate ball players.  So in my opinion, yes it is quite a surprise RIT is 5-0 in the conference.

5) I'd have to agree with you on this one.  Even U of R doesn't have the big men they've had in the past and Carson looked like a man against boys vs them.  There just aren't enough big bodies around to give him competition. 

We all know there is no answer to this debate at this point in the season (may not be an answer at the end of the season) but it sure is fun to talk about.

[gobombers15]

I don't think Ithaca's pre-season expectations or supporting cast should be a factor in this analysis. It really should play no part. Besides, we may have expected Ithaca to be good, but undefeated and ranked in the top 15? I don't think so. And beating good teams on the road and bum rushing everyone else is a little bit of a surprise. RIT is 5-0 in the E8, but 7-3 overall. That's pretty good, but we shouldn't be stopping the presses for that record, especially with no teams of much renown on the schedule thus far, save for a down UR club and a young Fisher team. That RIT finished 6th last year isn't much to me, especially when you consider that they would've made the E8 Tourney if they didn't get swept by Hartwick. Sure, they lost some good players. That's what happens when you have a 15-man rotation. I kid, but you get the point. RIT still had quite a bit of talent returning this year (Carson, E8 ROY Shane Foster, Korinchak, Sweet, et al).

I look forward to seeing Bostic and Carson go at it this weekend. These were their numbers from the two matchups last year:

Carson: 13.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 60% FG, 1.0 bpg
Bostic: 13.5 ppg, 16 rpg, 83.3% FG, 1.5 bpg

[Ethelred the Unready]

5) I'd have to agree with you on this one.  Even U of R doesn't have the big men they've had in the past and Carson looked like a man against boys vs them.  There just aren't enough big bodies around to give him competition. 

They were, in fact kids.  The three players that rotated through the "big" spots for UR were two freshman and a soph.  Are they Ndubizu and Onyiriuka?  No.  But they managed 30 and 8 on 11/13 shooting.  They're going to be fine.

[Bombers798891]

Couple of points from different posters to address:

1) Good point that the Knicks didn't run their offense through their PG but through Ewing. Here's the thing though. Someone had to be there to get Ewing the ball. Ewing couldn't do it himself. Carson's not going to bring the ball up, shake a defender and pop a three on his own. Someone else has to bring it up, get him the ball in a position to score. 

2) While Burton isn't the only guy on the Bombers who can score, part of the reason Leahy gets so many open looks is because you have to watch out for Burton. Same with Bostic. When you play the Bombers, you're not trying to shut down Leahy or Bostic. You're trying to shut down Burton.

3) I've never liked the "He leads all of the divisions" in some stat argument. Stephanie Cleary of IC led all of the NCAA in steals one season, and I'm talking women and men. What does that mean though? That she was the best defender in the country? God no. She played against some teams that would probably lose by 20 to a good high school team. More doesn't equal better once you start crossing divisions. Dominant D-III players always look a little better because there's not a lot of elite competition. Look at Elmira. This team won 6 games in three seasons. You don't see that in D-IA, and if you do, it's not from major conferences. I don't see Nate Kmic getting any "He's the best RB in the country" talk because he had more yards than anyone else. You'd take him over a Shon Greene or Javon Ringer?

4) I'm not sure how we can give Carson credit for RIT being an unexpected 5-0 in the E8 and not give the same credit to Burton for the Bombers having the best start and highest ranking in team history. Ithaca was supposed to be good, yes, but not THIS good. Did anyone else peg them at 11-0? Doubtful. #12 in the country?

5) This may seem a little unfair, but honestly, how many D-III schools have a legitimate big men? Carson is 6-6, 240 according to the RIT site. How many guys are that big and get significant playing time? (Not counting the 310 pound kid at SJF who apparently never plays) I mean, based on size alone, Carson's got an advantage, simply because D-III lacks a lot of true big men

Isn't that kind of like saying Burton enjoys an unfair advantage because he's a teriffic shooter and the DIII teams around here play defense like my dead Aunt Martha or Pedrito de Portugal?

1) No, because shooting is a skill you can work on and improve. Being 6-6, 240 is something you're born with (Not literally, but you know what I mean) I mean, if Carson spent 3-4 hours a day working on his jump shooting ability, he'd be able to do more offensively. Burton's not going to grow 10 inches or add on 60 pounds of pure muscle and be able to play inside.

2) Bad defenses affect everyone. I'd say it's harder to find a good defensive big man than guard on the D-3 level, but certainly Burton's not enjoying an advantage.

3) The poster who mentioned Carson's offensive rebounds makes a good point, but even if he puts in all five of those, it's about half of his scoring average. As they said, the rest of the time, it's someone else setting the table

4) Both players certainly have an affect on those around them, it's likely just harder to quantify with Carson than Burton.

5) But you can't say Ithaca would be fine without him. They weren't last season:

A) Plays only six minutes against Stevens, Bombers lose by nine
B) Misses St. Lawrence game, Bombers fall at home to 1-4 Saints.

6) RIT's 5-0 in conference with the following wins:

at Alfred, at Naz, home against Elmira, Utica and SJF

That's not bad, but how is it unexpected? Last season, the beat SJF, Elmira and Utica at home, and Alfred on the road. The only difference is they lost at Nazareth last season and won there this season. Naz was 20-8 last year and are 2-7 this season. So essentially, RIT has gone 5-0 in games they went 4-1 in last season, with the only difference being that Naz looks terrible this season. That can't really qualify as terribly unexpected can it? Beating a bad Nazareth team?

Ithaca has gone 8-0 out of conference, after going 5-4 out of conference last season. Common opponents thus far:

2008: Win against Cortland and Oneonta State, loss to St. Lawrence and Hobart, still have Potsdam to play.

So IC has flipped the St. Lawrence game and Hobart game. Hobart's terrible, but St. Lawrence is 6-3 and solid. The St. Lawrence game was on the road. Also, they've defeated a Sweet 16 team from last season on the road that is currently 7-2, handing them their only home loss of the season so far. That also has to be unexpected.

Yeah, Ithaca was expected to be good, but this is the same team that got obliterated on their home court in the E8 tourney. Also, RIT was 8-8 in conference, but of those 8, 6 were by six points or less and one was in overtime. The only game they really lost big time was at Stevens by 14. They had some close wins, but also wins by 14, 12, 20, 15 and 15. They were probably closer to 11-5 than 5-11.

I guess RIT struck me as a solid team that lost a lot of close games. IC didn't seem as snakebitten, and certainly, the E8 game was a disaster and a half.

I think what we can take away from this very engaging debate is that both players are excellent, they're probably the Top 2 players in the E8, and really, you can't go wrong with either of them. We'll know more when 25 games are played however

[Cyclone0205]

I think Bomber hit the nail right on the head with his 4th point about it being harder to quantify Carson's impact on his teammates compared to Burton.


With Burton, it's out there.  You see the assists, the way he runs the offense, the times he stops for the 3...all of these things are very noticeable by the nature of the position.


With Carson, his impact is the way he gets doubled in the post, the way he passes out, the way he rebounds, but even more so is some of the stuff you can't quantify...the way guys can pressure the ball knowing Carson is behind them..or the way guards get away with bad post entries because of how he seals on the block.  Hell, even the way he sets that hard screen so that his teammate gets an open layup.  Carson's contributions to making teammates look better are things that show up a lot more on tape than just watching or looking at numbers.



That said, more importantly tonight...GO GATORS!!!

[Ethelred the Unready]

Couple of points from different posters to address:

1) Good point that the Knicks didn't run their offense through their PG but through Ewing. Here's the thing though. Someone had to be there to get Ewing the ball. Ewing couldn't do it himself. Carson's not going to bring the ball up, shake a defender and pop a three on his own. Someone else has to bring it up, get him the ball in a position to score. 

2) While Burton isn't the only guy on the Bombers who can score, part of the reason Leahy gets so many open looks is because you have to watch out for Burton. Same with Bostic. When you play the Bombers, you're not trying to shut down Leahy or Bostic. You're trying to shut down Burton.

3) I've never liked the "He leads all of the divisions" in some stat argument. Stephanie Cleary of IC led all of the NCAA in steals one season, and I'm talking women and men. What does that mean though? That she was the best defender in the country? God no. She played against some teams that would probably lose by 20 to a good high school team. More doesn't equal better once you start crossing divisions. Dominant D-III players always look a little better because there's not a lot of elite competition. Look at Elmira. This team won 6 games in three seasons. You don't see that in D-IA, and if you do, it's not from major conferences. I don't see Nate Kmic getting any "He's the best RB in the country" talk because he had more yards than anyone else. You'd take him over a Shon Greene or Javon Ringer?

4) I'm not sure how we can give Carson credit for RIT being an unexpected 5-0 in the E8 and not give the same credit to Burton for the Bombers having the best start and highest ranking in team history. Ithaca was supposed to be good, yes, but not THIS good. Did anyone else peg them at 11-0? Doubtful. #12 in the country?

5) This may seem a little unfair, but honestly, how many D-III schools have a legitimate big men? Carson is 6-6, 240 according to the RIT site. How many guys are that big and get significant playing time? (Not counting the 310 pound kid at SJF who apparently never plays) I mean, based on size alone, Carson's got an advantage, simply because D-III lacks a lot of true big men

Isn't that kind of like saying Burton enjoys an unfair advantage because he's a teriffic shooter and the DIII teams around here play defense like my dead Aunt Martha or Pedrito de Portugal?

1) No, because shooting is a skill you can work on and improve. Being 6-6, 240 is something you're born with (Not literally, but you know what I mean) I mean, if Carson spent 3-4 hours a day working on his jump shooting ability, he'd be able to do more offensively. Burton's not going to grow 10 inches or add on 60 pounds of pure muscle and be able to play inside.

2) Bad defenses affect everyone. I'd say it's harder to find a good defensive big man than guard on the D-3 level, but certainly Burton's not enjoying an advantage.

3) The poster who mentioned Carson's offensive rebounds makes a good point, but even if he puts in all five of those, it's about half of his scoring average. As they said, the rest of the time, it's someone else setting the table

4) Both players certainly have an affect on those around them, it's likely just harder to quantify with Carson than Burton.

5) But you can't say Ithaca would be fine without him. They weren't last season:

A) Plays only six minutes against Stevens, Bombers lose by nine
B) Misses St. Lawrence game, Bombers fall at home to 1-4 Saints.

6) RIT's 5-0 in conference with the following wins:

at Alfred, at Naz, home against Elmira, Utica and SJF

That's not bad, but how is it unexpected? Last season, the beat SJF, Elmira and Utica at home, and Alfred on the road. The only difference is they lost at Nazareth last season and won there this season. Naz was 20-8 last year and are 2-7 this season. So essentially, RIT has gone 5-0 in games they went 4-1 in last season, with the only difference being that Naz looks terrible this season. That can't really qualify as terribly unexpected can it? Beating a bad Nazareth team?

Ithaca has gone 8-0 out of conference, after going 5-4 out of conference last season. Common opponents thus far:

2008: Win against Cortland and Oneonta State, loss to St. Lawrence and Hobart, still have Potsdam to play.

So IC has flipped the St. Lawrence game and Hobart game. Hobart's terrible, but St. Lawrence is 6-3 and solid. The St. Lawrence game was on the road. Also, they've defeated a Sweet 16 team from last season on the road that is currently 7-2, handing them their only home loss of the season so far. That also has to be unexpected.

Yeah, Ithaca was expected to be good, but this is the same team that got obliterated on their home court in the E8 tourney. Also, RIT was 8-8 in conference, but of those 8, 6 were by six points or less and one was in overtime. The only game they really lost big time was at Stevens by 14. They had some close wins, but also wins by 14, 12, 20, 15 and 15. They were probably closer to 11-5 than 5-11.

I guess RIT struck me as a solid team that lost a lot of close games. IC didn't seem as snakebitten, and certainly, the E8 game was a disaster and a half.

I think what we can take away from this very engaging debate is that both players are excellent, they're probably the Top 2 players in the E8, and really, you can't go wrong with either of them. We'll know more when 25 games are played however

I don't necessairily disagree with you on any of your points.  I don't have a lot of rooting interest in either RIT or Ithaca, though I have a nephew at the former and know one of the players on the latter.  However, I would point out that being 6'6" and 240 doesn't mean squat if you don't have touch.  With the amount of pounding guys like him take, I know it takes a lot more than just size to be effective. And it looks like Carson has worked his ass off on his footwork and his ability to take a hit and finish.  I'd say both guys have spent a good deal of time working on their game.

And while the win over UR was nice, I don't think you can really call it unexpected.  IC had a pretty veteran club and UR had 2 seniors (only 2 on the team), 2 sophs and a freshman in the starting lineup.  The game was UR's second - IC's 4th.  IC made 2 more 3's and 7 more FT's, but the stats were pretty even.  Not taking anything away from IC because they deserved to win.  But I don't think you can call it unexpected.  Now, if they had beaten LAST years UR team,  that would have been unexpected   8)

[bombersquadron]

In this debate I have to cast my vote for Burton. Being that I played with both Burton and Bostic and I was a big man in college, I can attribute to the true value of the Point Guard at this level. When Fisher was really good and going deep in the NCAA's they had O'Brien as their point guard. O'Brien controlled that team on the floor and ran there offense, Burton is that player but with a better set of skills. Guard play is so much more important at this level. The player doesn't have to be a point guard, but can even a point forward, someone who runs the time and controls the flow of the game. For example, look at Stevens last year with Waleed and this year without him.

My last point, is not a knock on Carson, because he has improved so much and has become a great player. However, I believe if you were to put Bostic on that RIT team right now, he would be putting up big numbers like Carson is doing, maybe not as good a FG %, but he would have 20 PPG and I believe he could get 20 boards a night. I have even talked to players on other teams in the conference (not Ithaca) who agree with my point: Carson is a great player, but it is magnified because of the lack of talent around him (no matter how good he makes them look) and the great job the coach is doing using Carson to get the Ws.  All in all I think the debate is very premature and with this weird conference schedule you never know what can happen. It will be a great match-up this weekend, I wish I could see it. Go Bombers!

[Bombers798891]

Couple of points from different posters to address:

1) Good point that the Knicks didn't run their offense through their PG but through Ewing. Here's the thing though. Someone had to be there to get Ewing the ball. Ewing couldn't do it himself. Carson's not going to bring the ball up, shake a defender and pop a three on his own. Someone else has to bring it up, get him the ball in a position to score. 

2) While Burton isn't the only guy on the Bombers who can score, part of the reason Leahy gets so many open looks is because you have to watch out for Burton. Same with Bostic. When you play the Bombers, you're not trying to shut down Leahy or Bostic. You're trying to shut down Burton.

3) I've never liked the "He leads all of the divisions" in some stat argument. Stephanie Cleary of IC led all of the NCAA in steals one season, and I'm talking women and men. What does that mean though? That she was the best defender in the country? God no. She played against some teams that would probably lose by 20 to a good high school team. More doesn't equal better once you start crossing divisions. Dominant D-III players always look a little better because there's not a lot of elite competition. Look at Elmira. This team won 6 games in three seasons. You don't see that in D-IA, and if you do, it's not from major conferences. I don't see Nate Kmic getting any "He's the best RB in the country" talk because he had more yards than anyone else. You'd take him over a Shon Greene or Javon Ringer?

4) I'm not sure how we can give Carson credit for RIT being an unexpected 5-0 in the E8 and not give the same credit to Burton for the Bombers having the best start and highest ranking in team history. Ithaca was supposed to be good, yes, but not THIS good. Did anyone else peg them at 11-0? Doubtful. #12 in the country?

5) This may seem a little unfair, but honestly, how many D-III schools have a legitimate big men? Carson is 6-6, 240 according to the RIT site. How many guys are that big and get significant playing time? (Not counting the 310 pound kid at SJF who apparently never plays) I mean, based on size alone, Carson's got an advantage, simply because D-III lacks a lot of true big men

Isn't that kind of like saying Burton enjoys an unfair advantage because he's a teriffic shooter and the DIII teams around here play defense like my dead Aunt Martha or Pedrito de Portugal?

1) No, because shooting is a skill you can work on and improve. Being 6-6, 240 is something you're born with (Not literally, but you know what I mean) I mean, if Carson spent 3-4 hours a day working on his jump shooting ability, he'd be able to do more offensively. Burton's not going to grow 10 inches or add on 60 pounds of pure muscle and be able to play inside.

2) Bad defenses affect everyone. I'd say it's harder to find a good defensive big man than guard on the D-3 level, but certainly Burton's not enjoying an advantage.

3) The poster who mentioned Carson's offensive rebounds makes a good point, but even if he puts in all five of those, it's about half of his scoring average. As they said, the rest of the time, it's someone else setting the table

4) Both players certainly have an affect on those around them, it's likely just harder to quantify with Carson than Burton.

5) But you can't say Ithaca would be fine without him. They weren't last season:

A) Plays only six minutes against Stevens, Bombers lose by nine
B) Misses St. Lawrence game, Bombers fall at home to 1-4 Saints.

6) RIT's 5-0 in conference with the following wins:

at Alfred, at Naz, home against Elmira, Utica and SJF

That's not bad, but how is it unexpected? Last season, the beat SJF, Elmira and Utica at home, and Alfred on the road. The only difference is they lost at Nazareth last season and won there this season. Naz was 20-8 last year and are 2-7 this season. So essentially, RIT has gone 5-0 in games they went 4-1 in last season, with the only difference being that Naz looks terrible this season. That can't really qualify as terribly unexpected can it? Beating a bad Nazareth team?

Ithaca has gone 8-0 out of conference, after going 5-4 out of conference last season. Common opponents thus far:

2008: Win against Cortland and Oneonta State, loss to St. Lawrence and Hobart, still have Potsdam to play.

So IC has flipped the St. Lawrence game and Hobart game. Hobart's terrible, but St. Lawrence is 6-3 and solid. The St. Lawrence game was on the road. Also, they've defeated a Sweet 16 team from last season on the road that is currently 7-2, handing them their only home loss of the season so far. That also has to be unexpected.

Yeah, Ithaca was expected to be good, but this is the same team that got obliterated on their home court in the E8 tourney. Also, RIT was 8-8 in conference, but of those 8, 6 were by six points or less and one was in overtime. The only game they really lost big time was at Stevens by 14. They had some close wins, but also wins by 14, 12, 20, 15 and 15. They were probably closer to 11-5 than 5-11.

I guess RIT struck me as a solid team that lost a lot of close games. IC didn't seem as snakebitten, and certainly, the E8 game was a disaster and a half.

I think what we can take away from this very engaging debate is that both players are excellent, they're probably the Top 2 players in the E8, and really, you can't go wrong with either of them. We'll know more when 25 games are played however

I don't necessairily disagree with you on any of your points.  I don't have a lot of rooting interest in either RIT or Ithaca, though I have a nephew at the former and know one of the players on the latter.  However, I would point out that being 6'6" and 240 doesn't mean squat if you don't have touch.  With the amount of pounding guys like him take, I know it takes a lot more than just size to be effective. And it looks like Carson has worked his ass off on his footwork and his ability to take a hit and finish.  I'd say both guys have spent a good deal of time working on their game.

And while the win over UR was nice, I don't think you can really call it unexpected.  IC had a pretty veteran club and UR had 2 seniors (only 2 on the team), 2 sophs and a freshman in the starting lineup.  The game was UR's second - IC's 4th.  IC made 2 more 3's and 7 more FT's, but the stats were pretty even.  Not taking anything away from IC because they deserved to win.  But I don't think you can call it unexpected.  Now, if they had beaten LAST years UR team,  that would have been unexpected   8)

Fair point on the Rochester game. I confess to not knowing as much about them as I do IC. I suppose you could be right. The interesting thing about that game is that UR shot better from the floor, from 3 and from the line, they just shot a lot less.

Of course Carson works hard. If I implied he was just some big oaf, I'm sorry. I guess I just mean that, as the saying goes "You can't coach size". There's obviously a great deal of skill and pounding going on down low, but I think it helps to be bigger than everyone else.

There is an interesting debate brought up by squadron. Replace Carson with Bostic and Burton with [insert RIT point guard here]. What team is better off then?

[with age came?]

Wanna tick everyone off?  Co-players of the year!   From distant position - who has played the more difficult schedule?  Edge goes to Burton and therefore has probably has faced better defense.  I know that Sharlow (pg at SLU is very good) and Burton willed his team to victory down the stretch while playing against him.  I feel that the tougher schedule would be the deciding factor for my co-player of the year vote!

[FROMAFAR]

I'm getting dizzy, and bombers, you really are bursting my bubble with your very accurate analysis of why RIT thus far is not so surprising. Unfortunatley your right, we are not really excelling as much as I thought thus far.... I don't really think we can say one is better than the other since they play two different positions on two totally different teams. I am glad both are in the E-8 and both are very good..... Both teams would suffer without big time without them. Here's a question that might be relevant to this is some strange round about way. In Stevens case, what do they miss more, a center or a point guard.  I know it's not relevant to Burton and Carson as Stecvens had neither, BUT which position is hurting them more. They don't have the consistency of a big who can rebound and score, sans Williams, and their current point guard is certainly not making anyone on the court better, as a matter of fact, I'll bet Grey wishes he had Greco back.  Not so much Walleed ( Apologize for spelling),
as Walleed liked scoring and sometimes looked to create his own shot rather than find Grey.  But my point is, what does Stevens miss most, the point or the center, you can only pick one.  I know they miss both... That being said, this weekends RIT IC game should certainly aluminate some of the opinions one way or the other. But what do I know