MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Pat Coleman]

I hope no one on here that posts live updates straight from basketball games.  Chalk this one into the list of boneheaded NCAA regulations.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071220/010939.shtml

Unbelievable.  I just hope the MIAA doesn't pull a Big Ten move to restrict the telecasts of the Hope-Calvin games and future web-casts of MIAA games. I attend many home Calvin sporting events (more than just basketball), but I listen to away games over the Internet (realist tells me video is on the way!). The way things are going, the MIAA could charge subscription fees for us to listen/watch MIAA games.

It's also sad if this does restrict the 'blogging' during live games. It was great during the last two Hope games to read different thoughts about the play of the game and read all the posts. Too bad if D3 Hoops had to shut this site down or something during certain games because of the regulations.

It wouldn't affect those who aren't credentialed to cover games, to my understanding. Y'all would be free to post whatever, even from your blackberries and palms, I believe.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat, that was my interpretation of the regulation as well.  The author of the screed suggested journalists could avoid the NCAA prohibition by simply buying tickets rather than getting credentials - true, as you understand it?  (I'm sure that would have negative implications in terms of access, etc., but maybe not at the d3 level??)

[Pat Coleman]

Yep -- until they make tickets with disclaimer on the back anyway.

[almcguirejr]

Grand Valley 66 (#2 in DII)
Aquinas 63

Aquinas had an 8 point lead with 8 minutes to go. 
Jamerson had 36 for the Lakers.

A Hope fan using comparative scores can now say they can compete with MSU.

[HopeConvert]

I'm glad Greg raised this issue, and even made me flashback to Lee Hardy's Phenomenology class. All due respect to Elmhurst - no question. But this game can't be treated in isolation. It is part of what appears to be a larger pattern, and that is Hope's tendency not to put teams away when it has the chance. Oldknight mentioned the infamous charge/flop NCAA Tournament game, and that game is a perfect example of the tendency of Hope to let games get away (as was the earlier game that year at Calvin). They had the heel of their boot squarely on Calvin's neck with about 5 minutes left, and instead of closing them out ended up in a situation, at home, where they got/needed a call to prevent OT. (I still think the biggest thing on that play was that Veldhouse took the ball too deep and didn't dish off earlier on the 2 on 1.)

I think we Hope fans are curious as to why this frequently seems to happen. Is it a problem of culture? (I remember when I lived in DC, and the Capitals acquired Rod Langway from the Canadiens, and it didn't take him long to observe the difference - one team expected to win and the other feared losing; he believed the main thing he had to do was change the team's culture.) Is it coaching? (I restate my position on this: GVW has forgotten more basketball today then I have ever known, so I'm not inclined to criticize.) Is it that the other teams are just better? (That would be hard to affirm: I've seen Hope blow out Calvin one game, but find a way to lose the close ones.) So: is this a pattern? The answer seems to be yes. Is there a single, or a constant cause? If so, what is it? It's these last two questions that cause us to fumble about for answers.

So it seems to me. I don't want to speak for all Hope fans on this one, but perhaps this clarifies things a little.

[northb]

I'm glad Greg raised this issue, and even made me flashback to Lee Hardy's Phenomenology class. All due respect to Elmhurst - no question. But this game can't be treated in isolation. It is part of what appears to be a larger pattern, and that is Hope's tendency not to put teams away when it has the chance. Oldknight mentioned the infamous charge/flop NCAA Tournament game, and that game is a perfect example of the tendency of Hope to let games get away (as was the earlier game that year at Calvin). They had the heel of their boot squarely on Calvin's neck with about 5 minutes left, and instead of closing them out ended up in a situation, at home, where they got/needed a call to prevent OT. (I still think the biggest thing on that play was that Veldhouse took the ball too deep and didn't dish off earlier on the 2 on 1.)

I think we Hope fans are curious as to why this frequently seems to happen. Is it a problem of culture? (I remember when I lived in DC, and the Capitals acquired Rod Langway from the Canadiens, and it didn't take him long to observe the difference - one team expected to win and the other feared losing; he believed the main thing he had to do was change the team's culture.) Is it coaching? (I restate my position on this: GVW has forgotten more basketball today then I have ever known, so I'm not inclined to criticize.) Is it that the other teams are just better? (That would be hard to affirm: I've seen Hope blow out Calvin one game, but find a way to lose the close ones.) So: is this a pattern? The answer seems to be yes. Is there a single, or a constant cause? If so, what is it? It's these last two questions that cause us to fumble about for answers.

So it seems to me. I don't want to speak for all Hope fans on this one, but perhaps this clarifies things a little.

Well, it appears to me that the first step would be to collect some data.  I do not have the inclination to search this out, but maybe SAC or someone else that enjoys the stats could compile some info.  How many close games has Hope been in and how many have they lost?  Without seeing the data, remember that if you are in a close game, the odds are you will lose 50% of them.  I wonder if fans of perenial winners sometimes figure their team a ought to win a greater percentage of the close ones.  The game is close because the 2 teams are evenly matched.

[almcguirejr]

I'm glad Greg raised this issue, and even made me flashback to Lee Hardy's Phenomenology class. All due respect to Elmhurst - no question. But this game can't be treated in isolation. It is part of what appears to be a larger pattern, and that is Hope's tendency not to put teams away when it has the chance. Oldknight mentioned the infamous charge/flop NCAA Tournament game, and that game is a perfect example of the tendency of Hope to let games get away (as was the earlier game that year at Calvin). They had the heel of their boot squarely on Calvin's neck with about 5 minutes left, and instead of closing them out ended up in a situation, at home, where they got/needed a call to prevent OT. (I still think the biggest thing on that play was that Veldhouse took the ball too deep and didn't dish off earlier on the 2 on 1.)

I think we Hope fans are curious as to why this frequently seems to happen. Is it a problem of culture? (I remember when I lived in DC, and the Capitals acquired Rod Langway from the Canadiens, and it didn't take him long to observe the difference - one team expected to win and the other feared losing; he believed the main thing he had to do was change the team's culture.) Is it coaching? (I restate my position on this: GVW has forgotten more basketball today then I have ever known, so I'm not inclined to criticize.) Is it that the other teams are just better? (That would be hard to affirm: I've seen Hope blow out Calvin one game, but find a way to lose the close ones.) So: is this a pattern? The answer seems to be yes. Is there a single, or a constant cause? If so, what is it? It's these last two questions that cause us to fumble about for answers.

So it seems to me. I don't want to speak for all Hope fans on this one, but perhaps this clarifies things a little.

Forgive me,  I missed Lee Hardy's Phenomenology class (I was making animal videos ) so I am trying to figure out what you just clarified.

[HopeConvert]

The appearance of solipicism in reacting to a close loss.

[AlwaysHope]

Grand Valley 66 (#2 in DII)
Aquinas 63

Aquinas had an 8 point lead with 8 minutes to go. 
Jamerson had 36 for the Lakers.

A Hope fan using comparative scores can now say they can compete with MSU.

So if MSU wins it all in NCAA Championship series this coming spring,  the obvious conclusion for Hope is...

[GoKnights68]

(I still think the biggest thing on that play was that Veldhouse took the ball too deep and didn't dish off earlier on the 2 on 1.)

....Dish it off to a pretty good 3-point shooter as well!






And tonight's GVSU game definitely confirms that Hope and Calvin can hang with MSU.  Nobody from MSU could match up with MVH, and Neitzel could not adjust to Veldhouse's style.  Izzo would get raddled by the Dew Crew and Knightmares.

[sac]

MSU by 40, Neitzel with 35........in either game

Izzone makes the Dew Crew look like an FCA gathering.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Thanks, sac, you kept me from a less diplomatic post!

Two years ago IWU had one of the most talented d3 teams ever (even if they couldn't follow through with a title ).  They played Illinois (the previous year's d1 runner-up) in an exhibition.  While they 'hung with' the Illini for 30 minutes, they ultimately lost by about 20 (IF Cory Jones had not been injured [giving us an extra, and our best, big man] and IF the Titans had not missed far more than their usual number of free throws [intimidated by the arena?], I think they might have hung with them for 37 minutes, but even I have trouble imagining an actual win).

Barring a monumental upset (e.g., IWU over Arizona in the '80s), NO d3 team is going to beat any but the absolute dregs of d1, and even 'hanging with' up to the wire is highly unlikely against even a 'mid-major'.

On the other hand, comparative scores can be a blast!  Given a long enough chain, it could be 'proven' that Caltech would beat North Carolina by 324 points, and that Hope would beat the Dutchmen by any score you want to name.

[sac]

Well, it appears to me that the first step would be to collect some data.  I do not have the inclination to search this out, but maybe SAC or someone else that enjoys the stats could compile some info.  How many close games has Hope been in and how many have they lost?  Without seeing the data, remember that if you are in a close game, the odds are you will lose 50% of them.  I wonder if fans of perenial winners sometimes figure their team a ought to win a greater percentage of the close ones.  The game is close because the 2 teams are evenly matched.

I was actually thinking about this, since I'm not sure of the totals myself.  However I didn't want homework over Christmas........but since I've been assigned the task (sigh).

I counted close games as single-digit margins, its just hard to quantify what a close game is, I've seen plenty of single-digit games/leads that seemed very comfortable.  There are several single-digit games in Hope's past that were double-digit leads before the dogs were called off.  I've used just the last 2 seasons, 1) for simplicity 2) because the games are the freshest in my memory.

Unfortunatley the Hope or MIAA stat crews didn't start using the running play-by-play untill last season.  I'd rather use the 5 minute mark as a guide but at least for 2006 just the final score will have to do.

2006--8 games, 6-2 record
11/25/05       vs Aquinas            W    67-66   
12/9/05        MADONNA              W    83-76     
12/10/05       AQUINAS              W    82-75     
12/28/05       LAKELAND             W   54-46     
01/21/06     at Alma                W    85-76       
2/8/06        at Calvin                       58-59  L   
03/04/06       CALVIN                 W    70-67       
03/10/06       at Wittenberg              49-56  L   

I can only share what memories of these games I have left.  First one that stands out is 1-21 vs Alma, Hope had a 24 point lead and the end of the bench came in with 5 minutes left and stunk up Cappaert Gym, so much so the starters had to come back to seal it with a minute left.  9 point margin, but not a close game.

2-8 Calvin, if I'm not mistake Hope held a 4 point lead with just about 1 minute or so to go and only scored 4 or 5 points in the final 5 minutes.

3-10 Wittenberg was a 1 or 2 point game with only a couple minutes left and only scored 3 or 4 points down the stretch with numerous opportunities to do so.  Witt went several trips without even a shot at the bucket.

2007 11 games, 6-5 record
11/24/06       vs Cornerstone            W    80-76     
12-1-06        at Carthage                         65-71  L     
12-2-06        vs Wheaton                         70-73  L     
12-16-06       at Aquinas                   W    65-62   
12-18-06       PURDUE NO. CENTRAL W    88-79       
12-30-06       ROCHESTER                 W    76-74       
01/13/07     * at CALVIN-M               W    65-62       
02/05/07     * at ALBION-M               W    78-71       
02-07-07     * CALVIN-M                           71-77  L   
02-24-07       CALVIN-M                           76-78  L   
3/10/07        vs Washington                     55-58  L   

I'm going to look at 2007, using the final 5 minutes of ballgames.
   
Cornerstone, Hope with 7 point lead, Go 0-5 from floor, 8-10 from line 2 turnovers
RESULT = WIN by 4

Carthage, Hope trails by 4, 1-7 from floor, 7-8 from line, no turnovers
RESULT = LOSS by 6

Wheaton, Hope with 4 point lead, 2-6 from floor, 2-2 FT, 1 turnover, outscored 10-3 in final 2:58
RESULT = LOSS by 3

Aquinas, no play by play, however I recall Hope leading and AQ rallying to tie the game late, Hope wins on 25 foot 3 pointer at the buzzer

Purdue North-Central, Hope has a 14 point lead with 2 minutes remaining, not really a close finish.

Rochester, Hope leads by 4, 4-7 from floor, 2-3 FT, 1 turnover, missed front end of 1 for 1 that gave Rochester a last second 3 that could have won.
RESULT = WIN by 2

Calvin, Hope leads by 4, 2-7 from floor, 1-2 FT, missed 2 shots in final minute that could have made life simpler, missed FT gave Calvin a chance to tie at buzzer.
RESULT = WIN by 3  (did make the key defensive play to win game)

Albion, 10 point lead with 5 to go, 10 point lead with 1 to go.  Is it a close game, I'm not sure.  Hope scores all FT's in the final 4 1/2 minutes to win.

Calvin, trail by 2, 0-7 from floor, 8-8 from line, 3 turnovers, Hope takes a 2 point lead with 2 1/2 to go
RESULT = LOSS by 6

Calvin, trail by 7, 4-9 from floor, 4-4 FT, 1 turnover, Hope missed last 2 shots, one in a tie game, one to win, no points in final minute
RESULT = LOSS by 2

Washington, trail by 10, 7-12 from floor, no FT's, one turnover (occured down by 4 with 2 minutes left)
RESULT = LOSS by 3


2008--3 games, 1-2 record
11/23/07       vs Aquinas                         69-78  LOT 
12-08-07       AQUINAS                    W    68-59       
12/19/07       vs Elmhurst                        71-74  L     

Aquinas, no play by play, but Hope has 5 point lead with just a under a minute to go in regulation.  Does not score while AQ steals the game with a midcourt steal and last second 3.  Dominate OT
RESULT = LOSS by 9 in OT

Aquinas, Hope 7pt lead, 0-3 from floor, 6-8 FT, 1 turnover, Hope has an 8 point lead with just under 2 to go.  Is that close?
RESULT = Hope win by 9

Elmhurst, Hope trails by 1, 1-5 from floor, 5-6 FT, 3 turnovers,
RESULT = LOSS by 3


So the overall record is 13-9, not sure I'd call all of those close games or more appropriately close finishes.

Maybe all of this is just what losing teams do in the final 5 minutes, not sure.
However, if you can't see the patern for Hope's shooting and general poor execution  in the final 5 of close games..........well I can't really help you.  Even in victory its less than steller.  Many of the 2006 games were exactly the same.


2005 = 4-7
2004 = 3-3
2003 = 5-5
2002 = 7-7

[oldknight]

Well, it appears to me that the first step would be to collect some data.  I do not have the inclination to search this out, but maybe SAC or someone else that enjoys the stats could compile some info.  How many close games has Hope been in and how many have they lost? 

Whew, sac; that's one heck of a research project you undertook--and you completed it in less than 3 hours from the time northb assigned you to it. My head hurts just trying to absorb all the content, and I've always considered myself to be a fact-based kind of guy.

[almcguirejr]

Making FT's was not the problem.