There isn't one player on the CMU squad who would take a starting position away if they were at UT. Central may be an improved team next season but the Rockets just should not have struggled so much tonight at home, in front of a big crowd, after laying an egg for most of the MAC opener. Expected much better execution and focus tonight.

One last harangue and then I shut up for the night...I get that an ugly win is still a win...but with the talent & experience we now have, don't we expect more than ugly wins against a mid-level team? More importantly, isn't this team capable of more than ugly wins against mid-level teams? I think they should be. And that's why it bugs me.

Pessimist out.

(01-11-2014 09:04 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 08:55 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 08:31 PM)emanoh Wrote:  Safe to say refs were inconsistent tonight.

Very. Bad & missed calls, both ways. It was horrible.

I think that they called a lot of fouls on drives to the basket that weren't there but then ignored a lot of other contact away from the basket (such as when UT brought the ball down court against the press). I don't know that they were particularly biased but they were indeed inconsistent.

I watched the game on my dvr and I reiterate my comments on the refs from Thurs women's game. They have to enforce the new rules regarding fouls called whether it makes them look bad or not. I just hope the coaches, officials, and AD's can somehow petition the NCAA to allow more contact on the court. I know Coach K calls this sport a "game of finesse" but you have to allow some contact in today's game in order to adjust with the current athletes. Otherwise, the game becomes a free throw shooting contest and that is an art many current players don't have.

What I don't understand is why, with all the foul trouble, did Matt Smith & Zach Garber play a combined 12 minutes?

Our big men looked great, ready to play. Our guard play lackadaisical.
This team does not belie at this point what we think.

There seemed like a foul called on every basket drive. No flow to the game. Last 10 minutes had to have taken 30 or 40 minutes to play.
If they are going to call a foul on every drive, maybe it's time to start thinking about some zone. A zone will help to take the lane away and help with guys with foul issues.

(01-11-2014 09:13 PM)falconplucker Wrote:  They played okay.. I saw a lot of sloppy passes by UT. UT defenders were falling for head shakes way too often. If CMU was better team, Toledo would have lost easily.

With a 13-2 record, you expect a better performance from them. I'm in complete agreement. Our defense needs improvement. I love our record as of right now and I loved the crowd/ support tonight, but I'm sorry, we just got to play better ball if we want to win the MAC and make some noise in the NCAA tourney. JMHO.

(01-11-2014 09:57 PM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  One last harangue and then I shut up for the night...I get that an ugly win is still a win...but with the talent & experience we now have, don't we expect more than ugly wins against a mid-level team? More importantly, isn't this team capable of more than ugly wins against mid-level teams? I think they should be. And that's why it bugs me.

Pessimist out.

I wouldn't call it an ugly win. I would call it a win. My expectations for the team in each game are as follows:

Have more assists than turnovers.
Have more rebounds than the other team.
Make the majority of their shots.
Make the majority of their free throws.
Most importantly, have more points than the other team at the end of the game.

If they do those things, they are going to win a lot of games. Was it a championship level performance tonight? No. They have a lot of room for improvement. We don't want them to be playing their best basketball on January 11. We want them to be playing their best basketball in March. Go Rockets!

(01-11-2014 09:41 PM)falconplucker Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 09:30 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 09:13 PM)falconplucker Wrote:  They played okay.. I saw a lot of sloppy passes by UT. UT defenders were falling for head shakes way too often. If CMU was better team, Toledo would have lost easily.

If CMU was a better team Rockets don't make lazy passes, watch defnders slipping into passing lanes and win b 12. CMU is gonna be good next year.

Good teams don't throw sloppy passes like that, at least not teams who want to play in NCAA Tournament instead of the NIT. I saw a much better effort and better focus against Kansas. This was a disappointing effort coming off of a loss.

Hmmm, so Georgetown's notoriousl bad NCAA tournament pass years ago means they were a bad team? Isiaih Thomas' casual flip to
Bird means the Pistons weren't good? Isolated examples, true, but good teams have lapses. I was disappointed with the early effort but this team is as good as any in a weak MAC.

(01-11-2014 10:15 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  What I don't understand is why, with all the foul trouble, did Matt Smith & Zach Garber play a combined 12 minutes?

Central is pretty small, and we have a lot of good mid-sized guys, so maybe Coach K thought we were better off with a smaller, quicker team.

(01-12-2014 08:45 AM)Dwight Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 10:15 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  What I don't understand is why, with all the foul trouble, did Matt Smith & Zach Garber play a combined 12 minutes?

Central is pretty small, and we have a lot of good mid-sized guys, so maybe Coach K thought we were better off with a smaller, quicker team.

These guys created match-ups issues at the defensive end when they were on the floor.

(01-12-2014 08:45 AM)Dwight Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 10:15 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  What I don't understand is why, with all the foul trouble, did Matt Smith & Zach Garber play a combined 12 minutes?

Central is pretty small, and we have a lot of good mid-sized guys, so maybe Coach K thought we were better off with a smaller, quicker team.

Agree---I think Coach K was looking to go with the best lineup for UT's man to man defense that would match-up against a small but quick CMU squad.

(01-12-2014 09:05 AM)T-Town Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 08:45 AM)Dwight Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 10:15 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  What I don't understand is why, with all the foul trouble, did Matt Smith & Zach Garber play a combined 12 minutes?

Central is pretty small, and we have a lot of good mid-sized guys, so maybe Coach K thought we were better off with a smaller, quicker team.

Agree---I think Coach K was looking to go with the best lineup for UT's man to man defense that would match-up against a small but quick CMU squad.

I would add that IMO Garber is still a bit challenged at this level. Was more surprised that Smith played so sparingly.

Nobody knows what a foul is any more. In some instances the refs allow a mauling and other times a blink is a foul. I agree new rules don't match up with todays bigger, stronger athletes.

Garber can contribute defensively, but needs to get a lot stronger. I have also noticed he doesen't have the instinctual nose for the ball as lauf. His timing is off, and when he does snag a rebound, he's 50/50 on holding onto it. When he does get a chance to help from ft line, clunk. He needs more time, but has more potential than the walk on who left the team.

I agree with the optimists and the pessimists, if that makes any sense.

Rockets are a deep, talented, athletic team. Move the ball well, take mostly good shots. I didn't see any selfish play with the possible exception of one young man who looked like he was hunting shots late in the game because he hadn't scored yet. I can't imagine there are many teams in the league with a better roster.

On the other hand, defensive transition needs improvement and our inability to stop dribble penetration is laughably bad. If Juice is going to continue to let his man go around him at will, it's going to be difficult to win a championship. CMU played offense five against four most of the night.

Good team. Fun to watch. Should win a lot go games. I hope it doesn't turn into one of those seasons (like the women's team has had) where you regular posters talk all season about how good we're going to be in March, then we make an early exit from the MAC tourney and you start talking about how the football team had the best recruiting class in the league.

Call me semi-optimistic (or, I suppose, anything else you feel like calling me).

(01-12-2014 10:49 AM)rkt Wrote:  I agree with the optimists and the pessimists, if that makes any sense.

Rockets are a deep, talented, athletic team. Move the ball well, take mostly good shots. I didn't see any selfish play with the possible exception of one young man who looked like he was hunting shots late in the game because he hadn't scored yet. I can't imagine there are many teams in the league with a better roster.

On the other hand, defensive transition needs improvement and our inability to stop dribble penetration is laughably bad. If Juice is going to continue to let his man go around him at will, it's going to be difficult to win a championship. CMU played offense five against four most of the night.

Good team. Fun to watch. Should win a lot go games. I hope it doesn't turn into one of those seasons (like the women's team has had) where you regular posters talk all season about how good we're going to be in March, then we make an early exit from the MAC tourney and you start talking about how the football team had the best recruiting class in the league.

Call me semi-optimistic (or, I suppose, anything else you feel like calling me).

My thought is that the bloggers are not giving Central Michigan enough credit. They are a 500% team. A little like our Lady Rockets. They have enough talent to play good in stretches and then hit a rough spot where they fall too far behind. They will have a few games this year where they make the favorite look bad. So I think that the win was about what we should have expected. The men are good (for MAC level) and should contend for the league championship. The year end tourney is a crap shoot, which is why I believe that the team which wins the 18 game regular season should be the NCAA tourney rep.