MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[sac]

Is Defiance showing up on any poll radar? 3 of their 4 losses came at the hands of vote getters, and 2 of those losses were by a total of 3 points. And now a win over the 13th ranked team, who only a week ago received one of the #1 votes.

They would have done themselves a huge favor by beating #37Wilmington #41Heidelberg or #35 Roanoke.  They're own website actually lists those rankings.  None of their other wins stand out, untill you get to Oshkosh, and if you asked the people who know the WIAC I think they're starting to have doubts about how good UWO is.

Hard to move up when your unranked and you lose to teams that are receiving votes and not actually ranked.

They do seem like one of the contenders for HCAC, which usually produces a solid tournament entry.

[NW Hope Fan]

I'd like to hope that UWO is as good as they are ranked because of the win against Elmhurst...

With Defiance, my point is, I'm wondering how they actually stack up considering "just how close they've come".

Also, with only one major contributing senior, they may be very good next year.


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oo MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!!! oo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Gregory Sager]

Unfortunately, I was unable to listen to yesterday's game but it sounds like in the end Hope lost due to a recurring problem. An inability to score/close a game in the last 5 minutes! Happened against Aquinas and was a problem last year at times too. I have no idea how you "fix" that sort of problem but I hope GVW can figure something out because its terribly frustrating to watch a lead evaporate in the last minutes. Still it was a close game and Hope obviously can play with Elmhurst. (Who knows maybe if that "special" ref FDF tracked was not there things would have been better?)

Here's another theory: Perhaps Hope lost due to the fact that Elmhurst made the Dutch lose.

I realize that every fan focuses upon his or her favorite team first, and that there is thus a tendency to overvalue one's team in terms of its contribution to the final outcome, whether positively or negatively. But only half of the players on the floor last night were wearing Hope uniforms; the other half were wearing Elmhurst blue, and together those EC guys make up a pretty solid team. They'd have to be, one would think, because in the end they beat Hope, and the Dutch are a pretty solid team as well.

(I'm certainly not singling out Hope posters with regard to the focus-solely-upon-my-team syndrome, because Erm Schmigget and sac among others gave due credit to the Bluejays.)

[Flying Dutch Fan]

GS - I don't see your theory to be any different than those expressed by numerous posters here.  In most cases, talking about a team's inability to accomplish some specific thing on the floor is giving credit to the opposing team,  at least it is in my mind.  However, turnovers (when not accompanied by a large number of steals) and a trend of difficulty scoring at the end of a close game are much more of a "did it to myself" kind of thing.  Elmhurst is no doubt a good team, but in that particular game, Hope caused much of its own demise.

[Gregory Sager]

GS - I don't see your theory to be any different than those expressed by numerous posters here.  In most cases, talking about a team's inability to accomplish some specific thing on the floor is giving credit to the opposing team,  at least it is in my mind.

That's not implied at all in what DCHopeNut said, FDF. He gave no credit to Elmhurst whatsoever, and in fact his only mention of the Bluejays came in reference to Hope later on in his paragraph, and then only in passing.

If you're going to give the other team credit, then come right out and give the other team credit.

Besides, I don't think that it can be logically inferred from his statement that Elmhurst was the force that kept Hope from accomplishing its late-game goals. "An inability to score" could mean missing open shots, poor decisionmaking with the ball, etc., and not necessarily the imposition of good defense by the opponent. You yourself say much the same thing:

However, turnovers (when not accompanied by a large number of steals) and a trend of difficulty scoring at the end of a close game are much more of a "did it to myself" kind of thing.  Elmhurst is no doubt a good team, but in that particular game, Hope caused much of its own demise.

If you're going to assert that Hope gave the game away rather than Elmhurst actually winning it, I won't argue with you -- you were there and I wasn't. (Although I'd have to wonder how the 'jays managed to come back in the first half from being down by 16 without doing much of the work themselves. I'm not saying it's impossible; it just seems unlikely to me.)

My basic point about fanbase solipsism remains, however, and DCHopeNut certainly doesn't do much to allay my suspicion that he harbors some of that solipsistic view re: Hope by tying what Hope did the other night to the Aquinas game and several games from the '06-'07 season. I just don't see any evidence in his post that he's taking Hope's opponents into consideration.

[PicknRoll]

FDF: I think you're half right and half wrong. Turnovers, despite how many steals the other team has, and an inability to score at the end of the game could completely be due to the other team. Of course both of those things could be due to one's mistakes, but they also could be caused by great-in your face-buckling down the last few minutes-defense. I wasn't at the game so it could be the former, but I think it is worth pointing out.

Holy smokes, I need to mention the great game by the pistons against the celtics the other night. Great game to watch.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[ChicagoHopeNut]

I don't deny Elmhurst is a good team, which makes Hope's loss on Wednesday all the more frustrating because it would have been a great resume builder in case Hope needs a Pool C bid. Hope had a large lead it lost and then couldn't score at the end of the game. Was Elmhurst's talent and defense a contributing factor? Absolutely. As sac noted many of Hope's recent late minute collapses have come against teams with a true low post player just like Elmhurst.  All that said I do think Hope did a great deal to blow this game as well. And it relates to a frustrating, recurring problem where Hope has a tendency to tense up late in games against high-level competition and start to turn the ball over and miss shots they were making the rest of the game. Is some of that increased defensive intensity from the other team? Yes, but from understanding of the Elmhurst game that would not account for everything. And I know from games in years past that it was not all the other teams defense because I was at the games.  I don't think being frustrated by that and discussing Hope's short-comings is a solipsistic view of the game. This is the MIAA board after all, not the CCIW board so its logical any viewpoints on this board will focus on MIAA teams.

I am reminded of one of the great Elite Eight games in recent memory when Illinois (of whom I am a huge fan) came back from 15 points down in the last 2-3 minutes against Arizona to advance to the Final Four in 2005. After that game both the local Chicago media and the national media focused predominantly on the great Illini comeback. As an Illinois fan it'd be great to think that the win was all because of Illinois' superior talent and play. And there is no doubt Illinois hit some clutch shots and played good defense but the reality is Arizona also had one of the greatest choke jobs in recent memory. It mad stupid passes, took bad shots, had a couple silly turnovers and failed to protect just 1 point of a 15 point lead. Now Hope blew its big lead in the first half so the analogy is not perfect but the point is that sometimes one team just blows it as much as the other team earns their way back into the game.

I will reaffirm though I do think Elmhurst is a talented team and certainly a team anyone should want to avoid in the NCAA tourney.

[calvin_grad]

Whether it was Hope's own fault, Elmhurst's defense, too much time at the beach, non-familiarity with tube steak condiments, too warm outside, whatever...I'm just impressed that "solipsistic" shows up on a hoops forum message board.   

[realist]

Playing tough, and hanging around within 4-7 points until the last few minutes of a game againsst a superior team.  Great coaching.  Mike Turner has lived off this recipe for years.  Sadly some ranked, highly hyped teams have had a tendency to fold when faced with adversity.  In my comments yesterday I was trying to make the point Hope will learn from this, and it is nice to see Hope playing quality opponents early (imho that hasn't always been the case).    The game I listened to the other afternoon Hope didn't choke they simply lost to a quality team that made things go their way at the end.  I can identify with any Hope poster being a bit disatisfied with the Dutch losing a game they thought they should win.   Having that feeling doesn't take any thing away from a great game by any opponent.
Calvin has some tough opponents next week, and I feel (win or lose)  that will help them much more than beating Grace Bible again.

[northb]

This board could really use some head to head games to talk about.  Merry Christmas, all.

[sac]

...I'm just impressed that "solipsistic" shows up on a hoops forum message board.   

Twice........ I had to look it up both times.

[PicknRoll]

Thats hilarious. I'm just glad I wasn't the only one that had to look it up!

Yes we need some MIAA games. I am confident with the Hornets MIAA season outlook after their performance against Bluffton.

[oldknight]

Whether it was Hope's own fault, Elmhurst's defense, too much time at the beach, non-familiarity with tube steak condiments, too warm outside, whatever...I'm just impressed that "solipsistic" shows up on a hoops forum message board.   

Absolutely. +k to GS for introducing this heretofore unused philosophical term. Reading our board should at least be good for some college credit if not post graduate. Maybe Calvin could create an Interim class built around Pat's site. 8)

[ChicagoHopeNut]

  In my comments yesterday I was trying to make the point Hope will learn from this, and it is nice to see Hope playing quality opponents early (imho that hasn't always been the case).    

Realist, I could not agree more. I think losing to Elmhurst in a close game is far more valuable to Hope than blowing out Findlandia or Grace or Marygrove. 

And I agree with your other statement as well. Hope's non-conference schedule has not always been challenging. It really started to step up with the advent of the MIAA-CCIW challenge and what seems to be at least semi-regular participation in the RDV Classic. Adding solid in-region opponents like those helps a team prepare for the conference season and improve Pool C bid possibilities.

[AndersDY]

For discussion about a particular game, such as this last one, Greg certainly does have a valid point that fans generally focus on the team they know. Given Hope's defensive success in recent years, Hope fans are well aware that we want to give credit to our team when opposing fans may be simply lamenting what they assume is a terrible shooting (or ball security) night by their own team. However in DC's case, it seems appropriate enough to focus on Hope since he was referring to a very frustrating trend developing over time in Hope's games. Yes, there was a CCIW team on the floor with them in this game, but offensive droughts in the closing minutes seem to occur with many various good teams on the floor with Hope.

As DoTheDew pointed out, we so rarely see Hope pulling out close wins with the last second shot. It seems far more common that we are the recipient of a buzzer beater shot and when Hope does hold on in a close game, it seems to generally mean our defense held in the final minutes, not that our offense put the game away. I'm not sure if it is a question of our approach in the end of a close game, but finishing tough games is a trait that a team needs come March. Two years ago I recall that while watching both the men's and women's teams, there seemed to be a night and day difference in their ability to put games away. Of course one team romped all the way to the title and the other couldn't hang on against Witt.

Maybe over time we see more of a trend than there truly is, but this certainly seems to plague Hope. Not sure if anyone knows what would lead to better finishing in close games.