MBB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[scottharris]

There is an article on www.dnronline.com about how if this group of sophomores stick around for EMU, they "might finally shed mediocrity".  Funny, I thought a person or group had to be mediocre to be able to shed that label.  They need to worry about becoming mediocre first.

I think most objective fans would say that EMU did acheive, at a minimum, mediocrity in the second half of last season. Finished the regular season with a 5-4 record in their last nine games. Those five wins included HSC, BC, Roanoke, Lynchburg, and Randolph. Three of the four losses were by a combined 20 points (VWC by 10, E&H by 3, Guilford by 7). In my book, finishing like that gets you at a minimum the mediocre tag.

[y_jack_lok]

The link below takes you to an article from DIII News, posted on the Wash U website.

http://bearsports.wustl.edu/releases/mbk10-13-08.html

I am wondering what you ODAC posters think about R-MC being ranked pre-season 5th in the nation in the DIII News pre-season top 25.

[eagleslam]

Scott...

The article never mentioned that they were talking about the last half of the season.  But, since you brought it up, let's examine some of those wins.  The first of their wins, according to their schedule, was against Lynchburg, a team that won ONE FREAKING ODAC GAME last year.  I hardly consider that something to hang your hat on.  They beat Randolph, a first year program, by only 12.  Then they beat BC by 1 point and RC by 3, so both of those games could have gone either way.    So, they blow out LC and get pounded by R-MC, so they cancel each other out.  They beat H-SC by 11 and lost to VWC by 10, so I think those two cancel each other out. There are five games left to look at now.  I agree that the GC game, losing by seven, is solid, but with only a 12 point win against a first year program, I think those two cancel each other out.  They beat RC by three, but lost to E&H.  I know it was by "only three", but E&H didn't even make the tournament last year.  So if anything, their loss against the Wasps is worse than their win against the Maroons.  That leaves them with their one point win against BC, but obviously that could have gone either way.  I know 5-4 is 5-4, and it is a winning record, and by itself, I would say that is mediocre.  But looking at their opponents and the scores, I do not think it earns the bill.

I was referring to more than just nine games anyway, as I think the article was.  The article itself mentioned their 14-40 ODAC record and their overall record of 26-49 for the past three years.  I was able to get the records since the 1992-93 season (thanks odaconline!).  In the ODAC, EMU is 83-205, a .288 winning percentage.  Some highlights include a season of 0-18, 1-17, 2-16, and 3-15.  They also have two other seasons where they did not make the tournament.  The two years they  finished higher than 6th, they lost in the first round.  Overall, they have a record of 133-265, a .334 winning percentage. 

Personally, I call that a "suckfest".  I think that should be obvious to anyone.  Mediocrity is so far out of EMU's sight right now, they need a telescope to see it.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is looking out of the telescope that the scientists who declassified Pluto as planet looked through.

[sludge]

Nah, I think I agree with Scott, mediocrity is within EMU's grasp.  Shedding it is the challenge.  Maybe I need to hit  the dictionary.

RMC ranked #5 preseason?  Wow. 
It sure isn't any favor to the team.  Do you realize how hard they'll have to work to even just match expectations?

Personally, I think expectations suck (along with assumptions).  Better to let it just unfold and be what it will be, and enjoy it hugely.

[sludge]

For fans of ODAC alumni:
Ben Strong (Guilford '08) has started a blog of his experience in Israel. 
http://bensprofessionalcareer.blogspot.com

It sounds like he's having better luck than Brandon Adair (VWC '07), who deserves better.
http://brandonsexperience.blogspot.com

Brandon mentions playing against another fine ODAC alum, Ricky Easterling.


Anyway, I guess the universal chant this year is Beat RMC!

[scottharris]

Your BC fan bias is clearly too strong for you to see otherwise. You already made up your mind and you find stuff to support it. Try finding stuff to support the opposite view point and your arguments will be met with more credibility.

Scott...

The article never mentioned that they were talking about the last half of the season.  But, since you brought it up, let's examine some of those wins.  The first of their wins, according to their schedule, was against Lynchburg, a team that won ONE FREAKING ODAC GAME last year.  I hardly consider that something to hang your hat on.  They beat Randolph, a first year program, by only 12.  Then they beat BC by 1 point and RC by 3, so both of those games could have gone either way.    So, they blow out LC and get pounded by R-MC, so they cancel each other out.  They beat H-SC by 11 and lost to VWC by 10, so I think those two cancel each other out. There are five games left to look at now.  I agree that the GC game, losing by seven, is solid, but with only a 12 point win against a first year program, I think those two cancel each other out.  They beat RC by three, but lost to E&H.  I know it was by "only three", but E&H didn't even make the tournament last year.  So if anything, their loss against the Wasps is worse than their win against the Maroons.  That leaves them with their one point win against BC, but obviously that could have gone either way.  I know 5-4 is 5-4, and it is a winning record, and by itself, I would say that is mediocre.  But looking at their opponents and the scores, I do not think it earns the bill.

I was referring to more than just nine games anyway, as I think the article was.  The article itself mentioned their 14-40 ODAC record and their overall record of 26-49 for the past three years.  I was able to get the records since the 1992-93 season (thanks odaconline!).  In the ODAC, EMU is 83-205, a .288 winning percentage.  Some highlights include a season of 0-18, 1-17, 2-16, and 3-15.  They also have two other seasons where they did not make the tournament.  The two years they  finished higher than 6th, they lost in the first round.  Overall, they have a record of 133-265, a .334 winning percentage. 

Personally, I call that a "suckfest".  I think that should be obvious to anyone.  Mediocrity is so far out of EMU's sight right now, they need a telescope to see it.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is looking out of the telescope that the scientists who declassified Pluto as planet looked through.

[eagleslam]

Scott...

I thought the purpose was to find things that could support what I believe.  Why don't you do two things.  First, tell me what you call EMU from the "stuff" I have brought forward.  Secondly, if you consider it mediocre, tell me why.  That would make your point of view more credible.  I have the numbers, proof, data, or in your words, "stuff", to back my opinion up.  The basis of stating a point of view is having something to support it, and I have done so.  If you think EMU is mediocre, support that belief as I have supported what I consider to be a "suckfest".

[scottharris]

I've already supported it, you've clearly chosen to ignore it...

[scottharris]

I thought the purpose was to find things that could support what I believe.  The basis of stating a point of view is having something to support it, and I have done so. 

Why did I say what I did? Because you are so clearly biased it prevents you from seeing any other viewpoint whatsoever. Biased arguments typically have little credibility.

From The Persuasion Handbook:
McCroskey (1967) demnonstrated that reluctant testimony (i.e., statements at odds with the evidence's sources own bias) is more persuasive than biased testimony and that audiences prefer speakers who present unbiased testimony. McCroskey (1967) and Anderson (1970) showed that unbiased and reluctant testimony resulted in higher ratings of credibility over biased testimonies.

From The Theory of Bias:
If the argument is supposed to be a contribution to a critical discussion, and we see the argument as being biased - that is, as being a narrowly advocacy point of view as opposed to an appropriately balanced argument of the kind required in critical discussion - then we will downgrade the argument in credibility in the context of it being a purported contribution to a critical discussion.

The CARS (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) Checklist provided by McGraw Hill (the textbook publisher) designed to assist students in finding research sources:

Here are a few clues to lack of credibility:
* Anonymity
* Negative metainformation. If all the reviews are critical, be careful.

Indicators of a Lack of Accuracy
In addition to an obvious tone or style that reveals a carelessness with detail or accuracy, there are several indicators that may mean the source is inaccurate, either in whole or in part:
* Very one-sided view that does not acknowledge opposing views or respond to them

Reasonableness
The test of reasonableness involves examining the information for fairness, objectivity, moderateness, and consistency. Fairness. Fairness includes offering a balanced, reasoned argument, not selected or slanted. Pretending that the opponent has wild, irra-tional ideas or arguments no one could accept is to commit the straw man fallacy. A good information source will also possess a calm, reasoned tone, arguing or presenting material thoughtfully and without attempting to get you emotionally worked up. Angry, hateful, critical, spiteful tones often betray an irrational and unfair attack under way rather than a reasoned argument.

Objectivity
Be on the lookout for slanted, biased, politically distorted work. One of the biggest hindrances to objectivity is conflict of interest. Sometimes an infor-mation source will benefit in some way (usually financially, but sometimes politically or even emotionally or psychologically) if that source can get you to accept certain informa-tion rather than the pure and objective truth.

Reasonableness
Writers who put themselves in the way of the argument, either emotionally or because of self-interest, often reveal their lack of reasonableness. If, for example, you find a writer reviewing a book he opposes by asserting that "the entire book is completely worthless claptrap," you might suspect there is more than a reasoned disagreement at work.
Here are some clues to a lack of reasonableness:
* Intemperate tone or language ("stupid jerks," "shrill cries of my extremist opponents")
* Overclaims ("Thousands of children are murdered every day in the United States.")
* Sweeping statements of excessive significance ("This is the most important idea ever conceived!")
* Conflict of interest ("Welcome to the Old Stogie Tobacco Company Home Page. To read our report, 'Cigarettes Make You Live Longer,' click here.")

[ODACHOOPS]

Macon ranked 5th in whatever pre-season poll is too high.  They are a good team with the potential to be a great team.  But they return the same team as last year for the most part; a team that didn't even make it out of the 1st rd of the odac tourney, nor make an NCAA berth.  Definitely think they have the potential to be ranked very high this year, just not yet.
Quite frankly I think vwc in the top 25 is being generous as well.  However because of the their name and their resent success, I can see them getting the nod over other "bubble teams" for one of those last few spots in the top 25, still they have a lot of scoring to replace before they can be the 22nd best team in the country in my mind.

[eagleslam]

I chose to ignore it because I didn't see anything that I would consider supportive.  You said 5-4 gets at least a mediocre tag.  Why?  If the article had said last year during the second half, they were mediocre, I might be able to get that.  You still haven't answered the two questions I asked.  Again, what do you consider EMU?  If you want to base your opinion on 9 games, that is fine.  I just think an opinion based on the past 16 years is more credible, clearly biased or not.  And, why is 5-4 mediocre?  If you want to base that purely on the record, so be it.  But I think looking at the schedule and results is more credible, clearly biased or not.

I have brought up actual facts that support my opinion.  Do facts no longer make an opinion more credible?  Or is it just that I am biased, it is not credible?  If that is the case, when did facts stop becoming a way of presenting an opinion.

[scottharris]

If you choose to ignore all basic facts of argumentation, then I am no longer going to continue to address your arguments.

[eagleslam]

This is not about the facts of argumentation.  Am I biased?  Absolutely.  This is about how EMU should not be considered mediocre.  You are no longer going to address this because I brought up the facts over the past sixteen seasons and because I looked in-depth to their last nine games instead of taking it at face value.  You have brought no facts to this discussion, except some rules on argumentation.  Here is my rule.... Bring facts to support your point of view, or don't state it.  If 5-4 at face value is mediocre to you, fine.  I just think breaking it down and showing 5-4 for what it is is more credible.  Besides, don't all arguments have bias in them?  According to you, all arguments have little credibility.  I hope it never happens, but what are you going to do if someone takes you to court?  Tell your lawyer not to show any bias towards you so he can seem credible?  Just accept all the cases cited by the prosecution, and not cite any in your own defense?  You would not want your attorney to be biased towards you and your case?

The basic fact is you have not shown any in-depth facts or insights as to why EMU should be considered mediocre.  If you have any, please state them, and I will gladly recognize them. 

[scottharris]

Continue to argue if you want, I'm not going to argue with you anymore because you simply refuse to listen.

[jdubyadubya]

Cat fight . EMU is not mediocre! VWC will finish much higher than 22nd. Despite a recent run that got them 2 ODAC championships, a national championship, and a national runner-up, the Marlins always have to prove themselves to the naysayers. I think they will have another fine year.