Empire 8

[FisherDynasty]

Bomber3, I agree that Fisher should not at this point be considered an elite team.  For one 'ELITE' teams don't lose at home to a team like Hobart and 2 lose to a team without their best player.  I knew fisher would be inconsistent similar to last year, however, to their benefit they do have some new pieces to their team and I expect them to be much better by the end of the season as they mesh and Kornacker gets the proper rotations set.   I do however, think they could get 20+ wins this season.  Desales is better than most teams in our conf this year if not all of them, especially if they shoot lights out from 3 like they did against fisher.  If Fisher played them again with Braswell I bet the score would be similar given Desales won't shoot it like that again.  In addition, Fisher played them on their home floor and only lost by 2.  The e8 is not very good this yea so i expect fisher to pick up a lot of in conference wins plus atleast 1 win in the conf tourny.  I think they'll hit 20 wins when its all said and done.

[Bombers798891]

Bomber3, I agree that Fisher should not at this point be considered an elite team.  For one 'ELITE' teams don't lose at home to a team like Hobart and 2 lose to a team without their best player.  I knew fisher would be inconsistent similar to last year, however, to their benefit they do have some new pieces to their team and I expect them to be much better by the end of the season as they mesh and Kornacker gets the proper rotations set.   I do however, think they could get 20+ wins this season.  Desales is better than most teams in our conf this year if not all of them, especially if they shoot lights out from 3 like they did against fisher.  If Fisher played them again with Braswell I bet the score would be similar given Desales won't shoot it like that again.  In addition, Fisher played them on their home floor and only lost by 2.  The e8 is not very good this yea so i expect fisher to pick up a lot of in conference wins plus atleast 1 win in the conf tourny.  I think they'll hit 20 wins when its all said and done.

I've never liked saying "Well, this won't happen again" when trying to explain away losses, because people don't do it for wins. I mean, yeah, teams won't shoot the lights out like DeSales, but they also won't shoot 5-27 in the first half like RIT did. And Fisher didn't pull away in that game till there were about 10 min left. Nor is Fisher going 15-16 from 2 like in the second half against Brockport. That type of logic cuts both ways

Of course, I feel the same way about some of IC's wins. Phil Barrera isn't going to go 16-18 every night and I don't think Andrei Oztemel will be consistently hitting 30 points a game.

I think 17-18 wins feels about right for Fisher. Probably IC too. I think some of the teams at the top of the E8 will pick off some wins against each other.

[FISHERMAN]

I'm not bailing on Fisher like some of the other Cardinal "fans" on this board. This team is going to be just fine. Trust me. Hope you guys don't hurt yourselves jumping back on the Fisher bandwagon when they're making waves in the NCAA's.

[fisheralum91]

which fisher fans are ya referrring to?

[FisherDynasty]

Yeah which ones? saying they aren't elite team is a fact not really an opinion. everything else was positive. Sounds like Fisherman could be the guy from Hartwick. maybe he transfered.

[sjfcards]

I didn't reallize that questioning how good a person's favorite team really is makes you not a true fan. I would wonder how any team ever fired a coach, or signed new players with that attitude. Again, Fisherman, this Fisher team is OK, but not anything like the elite teams that made waves in the tournament a few years ago. If they win the league, and I think they will, that will be a good season for them. Asking for more than one win in the tourny, when they will probably have to travel to an Amherst or something like that is a totally different thing.

[sjfcards]

I posted this over on the football board, but wanted to get everyone's oppinion on this as well:

There was a good article in the Ithaca Paper Tuesday from AP writer Alan Scher Zagier, about the underperformance academically of student athletes at the DIII level. Apparently student athletes at DIII schools in all sports score roughly 9 percentage points lower in school than the average of the rest of the student body. A group called the College sports project is looking into the statistic, and has the NCAA's interest. They have performed a study on 80 of the toughest academic schools in Division III, and are looking at their student averages (The UAA declined to participate in the study, so no U of R etc in the study. Too bad since that one league probably has most of the top 10 academic schools by itself.)

The article was basically saying that this assumption that DIII has their priorities straight with sports and academics may not be so accurate after all. I found myself not sure what to make of the article. I was a student athlete at Fisher and did not see any difference in the time and energy I put into school compared to other students, but I was wondering how others on the boards viewed it? 

[bomber3]

I posted this over on the football board, but wanted to get everyone's oppinion on this as well:

There was a good article in the Ithaca Paper Tuesday from AP writer Alan Scher Zagier, about the underperformance academically of student athletes at the DIII level. Apparently student athletes at DIII schools in all sports score roughly 9 percentage points lower in school than the average of the rest of the student body. A group called the College sports project is looking into the statistic, and has the NCAA's interest. They have performed a study on 80 of the toughest academic schools in Division III, and are looking at their student averages (The UAA declined to participate in the study, so no U of R etc in the study. Too bad since that one league probably has most of the top 10 academic schools by itself.)

The article was basically saying that this assumption that DIII has their priorities straight with sports and academics may not be so accurate after all. I found myself not sure what to make of the article. I was a student athlete at Fisher and did not see any difference in the time and energy I put into school compared to other students, but I was wondering how others on the boards viewed it? 

At my time at Ithaca, especially my final year, I had to miss a lot of practices due to class.  The coaching staff at IC mandated attending class over practice and I couldn't have asked more from them in terms of fairness and understanding.  I also noticed I performed substantially better in school during basketball season because I was more focused. 

The study needs to follow these players during high school too.  Did the students have lower grades than their fellow classmates prior to playing at the DIII level? If so then the argument that DIII athletics contributes to lower grades is moot.

[Bombers798891]

I posted this over on the football board, but wanted to get everyone's oppinion on this as well:

There was a good article in the Ithaca Paper Tuesday from AP writer Alan Scher Zagier, about the underperformance academically of student athletes at the DIII level. Apparently student athletes at DIII schools in all sports score roughly 9 percentage points lower in school than the average of the rest of the student body. A group called the College sports project is looking into the statistic, and has the NCAA's interest. They have performed a study on 80 of the toughest academic schools in Division III, and are looking at their student averages (The UAA declined to participate in the study, so no U of R etc in the study. Too bad since that one league probably has most of the top 10 academic schools by itself.)

The article was basically saying that this assumption that DIII has their priorities straight with sports and academics may not be so accurate after all. I found myself not sure what to make of the article. I was a student athlete at Fisher and did not see any difference in the time and energy I put into school compared to other students, but I was wondering how others on the boards viewed it? 

I think that, in general, the thing that contributes to doing well is spending time doing work. I'm a professor, and the students of mine who put in the most time on assignments, come to class, come to office hours, do drafts, etc. are generally the ones who do better.

Obviously, playing sports is a huge time commitment, so it's certainly logical to assume that there's some correlation. But that might be true for other students as well, like ones with full-time jobs, or other extra-curricular. That's kind of stating the obvious though

[Ethelred the Unready]

I posted this over on the football board, but wanted to get everyone's oppinion on this as well:

There was a good article in the Ithaca Paper Tuesday from AP writer Alan Scher Zagier, about the underperformance academically of student athletes at the DIII level. Apparently student athletes at DIII schools in all sports score roughly 9 percentage points lower in school than the average of the rest of the student body. A group called the College sports project is looking into the statistic, and has the NCAA's interest. They have performed a study on 80 of the toughest academic schools in Division III, and are looking at their student averages (The UAA declined to participate in the study, so no U of R etc in the study. Too bad since that one league probably has most of the top 10 academic schools by itself.)

The article was basically saying that this assumption that DIII has their priorities straight with sports and academics may not be so accurate after all. I found myself not sure what to make of the article. I was a student athlete at Fisher and did not see any difference in the time and energy I put into school compared to other students, but I was wondering how others on the boards viewed it? 

I think that, in general, the thing that contributes to doing well is spending time doing work. I'm a professor, and the students of mine who put in the most time on assignments, come to class, come to office hours, do drafts, etc. are generally the ones who do better.

Obviously, playing sports is a huge time commitment, so it's certainly logical to assume that there's some correlation. But that might be true for other students as well, like ones with full-time jobs, or other extra-curricular. That's kind of stating the obvious though

I'm not sure a study across the board in DIII can be terribly valid.  I mean, the student athlete at a NESCAC or UAA school is likely to be more focused than say, those at SUNY Morrisville.  Maybe a more valid study would be differences within a particular school or even conference.  How do Ithaca athletes compare to the general population of Ithaca students, for example.

[sjfcards]

According to the article, the study was only looking at 80 of the "most academically challenging" schools, not including the UAA. I think that may have something to do with it as well. The same student athlete is probably not going to do as well at Carnegie Mellon or the Univesity of Chicago, as they would do at say Fisher or Naz. Obviously I went to Fisher, and I think the shool is a quality one, I can admit that we are not on the same level as the little IVY league that is the UAA.

It was my experience that when I was in school I missed practices and such because of class, and was always more tuned into school than I was athletics. I just wonder what the NCAA will do about this now that this study has their attention. In DI and DII the NCAA subjects schools to academic reviews of their athletes. Will that happen at the DIII level now?

I think the more important question to be looking at is what were the qualifications of the student to get into the school they are attending. Does U of R or Brandeis drop academic standards and SAT requirements to get a better basketball player? I doubt it, but that is the bigger question to me. If DIII student, who by defiinition is paying his way through school can live with a 9% points lower GPA than he could get, I have no problem with that. It is probably worth the 9% points to have the sport on your resume. It would be different if DIII schools are denying some qualified students, because they want to win games.

[Ethelred the Unready]

I think the more important question to be looking at is what were the qualifications of the student to get into the school they are attending. Does U of R or Brandeis drop academic standards and SAT requirements to get a better basketball player? I doubt it, but that is the bigger question to me. If DIII student, who by defiinition is paying his way through school can live with a 9% points lower GPA than he could get, I have no problem with that. It is probably worth the 9% points to have the sport on your resume. It would be different if DIII schools are denying some qualified students, because they want to win games.

Well, I think some considerations are made, but only if the coach/staff believe the athlete can handle the pressure.  When my son was being recruited it was pretty eye opening.  He was a good student but not top 10 in his class.  He was a leader and did a lot of extracurricular things  So when Hartwick, UNE, SUNY schools etc contacted him I understood.  But then Wesleyan and Dickinson started pushing I thought it odd.  And when U of R called, it was all over but the dancing.  His career ended after his soph season (injuries, numbers and fianlly reaching the point where putting his body through the torture was no longer worth NOT doing some other pretty teriffic things) but he's still there and doing well.  Loves it in fact.  Would he be there if it weren't for basketball?  No I really don't think so.  Is he making the most out a situation aided by sports?  Absolutely.

[FROMAFAR]

I agree with Ethelread... There are too many factors to have a valid study. Probably the most valid study would be within a school itself.. That's apples to apples. Take an RIT (my alma mater). Not an easy school to get into.  If they make concessions for the athletes admission, (they may) then that should show in how they fare comparitive to those students who were not recruited, and attend  the same classes. There are too many factors for a study of this kind to be valid. Different curriculums, teachers, personalities........Being an engineer, I don't care for subjective studies. However I do understand that studies like this get people thinking.  That's not a bad thing....      

[sjfcards]

So I turn on the Fisher game tonight to listen to the play by play and I hear that 3 of 5 starters, and like 7 of the top 10 scorers are suspended for breaking team rules? Any information out there on what the players did? Or how long they are out? How about who is out?

I like that there is discipline in the program, but my mind is racing about what is going on.

[magicman]

Ithaca beats Roanoke College 96-88 in the 1st round of the Bill Sudeck Holiday Classic at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland Ohio. Chris Cruz-Rivas led the Bombers with 26 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists, and 5 steals. Phil Barera had a double-double with 24 pts and 11 boards. Jordan Marcus also scored 24 pts and Andrie Oztemel Chipped in with 10. Bombers take on the winner of Theil vs. Case Western Reserve tomorrow at 4 PM.