The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

IMO, Kent is going to have to shoot in the 50% range to beat UCLA and rebound like H***. And I hope we don't get Bill Walton as TV color guy. UGH Walton is like the Waltrips of NasCRAP... They never shut up.

(03-16-2017 11:09 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 10:48 AM)delflash Wrote:  Columbus Dispatch cartoonist disses Kent State:

http://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20170316...ch-madness

Wow, he hit the trifecta: a cartoon that isn't funny to Republicans, Democrats, or basketball fans.

Yeah, that's just dumb. I hope he does better than this on a regular basis or the dude's going to be out of a job.

Apparel
http://www.fanatics.com/COLLEGE_MAC_Gear...erid/14301

(03-16-2017 09:26 AM)fallsdog Wrote:  Good read....

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/inde...iver_index

Agree nice story - hard to believe it's been 15 years. He raises the point some of us made earlier about the 2002 BG team - I didn't realize they had beat MI. Many good MAC team passed over (I think L Kennedy was even on the selection committee during these years) - but I've seen the same thing in the Big Sky - where teams had wins over PAC 10 foes. I find it frustrating - I love the MAC but college sports is all about money. It seems the original intent of the tournament was to see which league champion was best! Now you have second tier teams from say the ACC or Big Ten get bids. OK they bring fans - maybe and make money. But lets say you have lost to Duke three times this year - should you potentially get a fourth shot at them - in my small mine and probably Dukes NO! I've argued this with friends (ACC fanatics) and they don't but???

Preach [I believe that means heck yes]

(03-16-2017 06:57 PM)OLNWFLSH Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 09:26 AM)fallsdog Wrote:  Good read....

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/inde...iver_index

Agree nice story - hard to believe it's been 15 years. He raises the point some of us made earlier about the 2002 BG team - I didn't realize they had beat MI. Many good MAC team passed over (I think L Kennedy was even on the selection committee during these years) - but I've seen the same thing in the Big Sky - where teams had wins over PAC 10 foes. I find it frustrating - I love the MAC but college sports is all about money. It seems the original intent of the tournament was to see which league champion was best! Now you have second tier teams from say the ACC or Big Ten get bids. OK they bring fans - maybe and make money. But lets say you have lost to Duke three times this year - should you potentially get a fourth shot at them - in my small mine and probably Dukes NO! I've argued this with friends (ACC fanatics) and they don't but???

Nobody is interested in who the best team is. They want to make money, gamble and give teams second chances. It's been like that since the Ancient Greek Olympics (Athens used to scout Sparta and bribe their best athletes to move and vice versa). It's not going to change anytime soon.

A good showing against UCLA could go a long way for next year. I believe we have one scholarship available for sure and possibly two if Ridenour isn't given a scholarship (probably deserves one). So a good showing could have immediate returns.

(03-12-2017 05:36 PM)FlashPan Wrote:  I have watched UCLA several times. Of all the big names, I think I would prefer to play them than the other choices. They are beatable with a little bit of luck thrown in.. Kent is more athletic.

Hey, Flashes...
I dropped by to check out what you guys are saying about the match-up...Got as far as this post. Inside joke? "Tongue-in-cheek"? Or is FlashPan serious?

I've been watching college basketball long enough to know to take EVERY NCAA match-up seriously...and, I'll be truthful, I don't really follow your team much, so I haven't seen much of them this year...So, maybe the guy is right...

But, it is hard for me to believe that your team is "more athletic" than a Bruin team that runs up and down the floor to the tune of 90+ ppg and has several guys who will be making money in the NBA next year...

So, tell me where you are "more athletic"...and how you match-up with UCLA...

I know you've got a rather smallish line-up and run everything through your post, Hall...but he's really your only big player...and he's only about 6'8, 235. You are aware that UCLA starts a front line of 7'0", 6'10", 6'5" (and all three were McDonalds All-Americans) and comes in off the bench with another 6'11" and 6'10"? Seems like Hall will have his hands full. And that the Bruins' smallest starter is 6'3"?

What do you think your coaches will do to try to combat UCLA's size inside?

Thoughts are appreciated...

(03-17-2017 08:45 AM)Bruin Steve Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 05:36 PM)FlashPan Wrote:  I have watched UCLA several times. Of all the big names, I think I would prefer to play them than the other choices. They are beatable with a little bit of luck thrown in.. Kent is more athletic.

Hey, Flashes...
I dropped by to check out what you guys are saying about the match-up...Got as far as this post. Inside joke? "Tongue-in-cheek"? Or is FlashPan serious?

I've been watching college basketball long enough to know to take EVERY NCAA match-up seriously...and, I'll be truthful, I don't really follow your team much, so I haven't seen much of them this year...So, maybe the guy is right...

But, it is hard for me to believe that your team is "more athletic" than a Bruin team that runs up and down the floor to the tune of 90+ ppg and has several guys who will be making money in the NBA next year...

So, tell me where you are "more athletic"...and how you match-up with UCLA...

I know you've got a rather smallish line-up and run everything through your post, Hall...but he's really your only big player...and he's only about 6'8, 235. You are aware that UCLA starts a front line of 7'0", 6'10", 6'5" (and all three were McDonalds All-Americans) and comes in off the bench with another 6'11" and 6'10"? Seems like Hall will have his hands full. And that the Bruins' smallest starter is 6'3"?

What do you think your coaches will do to try to combat UCLA's size inside?

Thoughts are appreciated...

Well, height is not everything (Isiah Thomas, Spud Webb, Muggsie, etc. come to mind). So I would not get too hung-up on that. Plus, the KSU small guys are one of the top offensive rebounding team in the nation.

I don't pay much attention when one refers to someone being more athletic. What defines one being more athletic than another anyway? And what really irritates me is when announcers make the comment, "He is really athletic, for a big man." Just because you are big, you are not as "athletic" as a shorter dude? So I pay little attention these types of comments. All these kids are good athletes, both UCLA & KSU.

At this stage of the season, what really matters is the intelligence & mental toughness & preparedness of a team. I would imagine UCLA & KSU will be approaching the game somewhat differently. The team that will make the fewer mistakes should win.

May the better team win.

(03-17-2017 09:22 AM)Albert Flasher Wrote:  I don't pay much attention when one refers to someone being more athletic. What defines one being more athletic than another anyway? And what really irritates me is when announcers make the comment, "He is really athletic, for a big man." Just because you are big, you are not as "athletic" as a shorter dude? So I pay little attention these types of comments. All these kids are good athletes, both UCLA & KSU.

Actually, I chuckle a bit at the "athletic" comments as well...I have seen the term used by some in a somewhat biased racial context. It permeated a particular thread on a message board of a particular southern team we played this year where a poster flat-out stated that UCLA wasn't very "athletic" because we had "too many white guys"!! Believe it or not...

As to the height thing, it's not just rebounding...it's being able to post people up under the basket...and to hinder shots of a shorter opponent. You won't see the Bruins on list of top offensive rebounders--largely because they don't have as many missed shots to rebound...The Bruins shoot an astounding 52% from the field and over 40% from the 3-point line (for some context, Kent is 42.8 and 31.8...(Even free throws, UCLA shoots 74.5%, Kent 71.9%)

Another statistical comparison, UCLA averages 21.5 assists per game (Kent is at 12.5). This demonstrates UCLA's ability to move the ball around for an open or easy shot...as opposed to schools with lower assist totals--where there is more of a reliance on players trying to beat their guy one-on-one...

Also, I know that Kent relies a lot on forcing turnovers...and UCLA is by no means turnover-proof...But, statistically, UCLA turned the ball over 11.5, Kent 13.1...and UCLA's Assist/Turnover ratio is nearly 2:1, Kent's is 1:1

I am still looking for any area where Kent State might hold an edge?

Bruins guy. Let's just say this. I've seen your team play several times. There is only one team that will take home the trophy in the end... and it won't be the Bruins. And one last comment: If things are so rosey at UCLA, then why is Stevie thinking about Indiana?

not trolling may be an area where KSU has an advantage...

(03-17-2017 10:24 AM)FlashPan Wrote:  And one last comment: If things are so rosey at UCLA, then why is Stevie thinking about Indiana?

Why? Because it's his alma mater...Because he was born and raised in Indiana...Because they'd come after him with a ship load of money? Because he took a load of crap last year when the team finished out of the tourney...

And it all doesn't mean he's really leaving...just a lot of rumor right now. Obviously, if you are covering IU Hoops, you're looking for candidates for the vacancy...so you first look at your school's alums who are successfully coaching elsewhere...

As to things being rosy at UCLA, remember, he may lose a few of these guys early to the NBA, but he's also got an incredible class coming in next year...six recruits, four of ESPN's Top 50 plus a guy no one knows where to rank since he just reclassified from the 2018 class...plus another Ball...Plus he'll have a few pretty good players returning from this team--not exactly a situation you run away from.

Will they win the title this year? Don't know...but they have as good a chance as anyone else...The Bruins beat three teams seeded above them...There isn't a team they played they haven't beaten at least once...and finished with a better W/L record than anyone except Gonzaga and Nova...

Another good one...

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/inde...iver_index

"And it all doesn't mean he's really leaving...just a lot of rumor right now. Obviously, if you are covering IU Hoops, you're looking for candidates for the vacancy...so you first look at your school's alums who are successfully coaching elsewhere"...

I don't think it's going to happen so ur stuck with him in LA.

(03-17-2017 10:24 AM)FlashPan Wrote:  <snip>
If things are so rosey at UCLA, then why is Stevie thinking about Indiana?

Well, if I were him, I wouldn't want to deal with LaVar Ball for 3 more years. His plan for getting a shoe deal for all three sons is a NCAA penalty just waiting to happen

Good Luck tonight Kent State! Make the MAC proud!

(03-17-2017 09:48 AM)Bruin Steve Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 09:22 AM)Albert Flasher Wrote:  I don't pay much attention when one refers to someone being more athletic. What defines one being more athletic than another anyway? And what really irritates me is when announcers make the comment, "He is really athletic, for a big man." Just because you are big, you are not as "athletic" as a shorter dude? So I pay little attention these types of comments. All these kids are good athletes, both UCLA & KSU.

Actually, I chuckle a bit at the "athletic" comments as well...I have seen the term used by some in a somewhat biased racial context. It permeated a particular thread on a message board of a particular southern team we played this year where a poster flat-out stated that UCLA wasn't very "athletic" because we had "too many white guys"!! Believe it or not...

As to the height thing, it's not just rebounding...it's being able to post people up under the basket...and to hinder shots of a shorter opponent. You won't see the Bruins on list of top offensive rebounders--largely because they don't have as many missed shots to rebound...The Bruins shoot an astounding 52% from the field and over 40% from the 3-point line (for some context, Kent is 42.8 and 31.8...(Even free throws, UCLA shoots 74.5%, Kent 71.9%)

Another statistical comparison, UCLA averages 21.5 assists per game (Kent is at 12.5). This demonstrates UCLA's ability to move the ball around for an open or easy shot...as opposed to schools with lower assist totals--where there is more of a reliance on players trying to beat their guy one-on-one...

Also, I know that Kent relies a lot on forcing turnovers...and UCLA is by no means turnover-proof...But, statistically, UCLA turned the ball over 11.5, Kent 13.1...and UCLA's Assist/Turnover ratio is nearly 2:1, Kent's is 1:1

I am still looking for any area where Kent State might hold an edge?

Kent State might hold an edge in motivation. How hard they are willing to play versus a team that probably thinks they can sleepwalk through the game and win with ease. Don't know. What I do know, is it is March and teams that have no business being "in the game" versus some of the big boys do it all the time. Will it happen tonight? Who knows.......we will see.

Consider the Bruins' motivation, though: Despite a high ranking and only 4 losses on the year, the committee shipped them to another region as a 3 seed and seeded them behind #1 seed with 7 losses that also got beaten in their conference tourney...and a #2 seed with 5 losses that they beat head-to-head on the other guys' home court...Nothing like being disrespected to provide motivation...

(03-17-2017 08:45 AM)Bruin Steve Wrote:  But, it is hard for me to believe that your team is "more athletic" than a Bruin team that runs up and down the floor to the tune of 90+ ppg and has several guys who will be making money in the NBA next year...

Shoot, you think running at that pace is impressive? Have you seen the pace LaVar Ball's mouth runs at? Now that's down right otherworldly.