Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

[MBB] Game #25: 2/3/18 - 7PM - vs New Hampshire (BPG & FF)


Eli

Recommended Posts

Last Up: W (57-50) @ Stony Brook
Next Up: vs New Hampshire (9-13, 5-3 in the AE with a game against Hartford before facing us)
TV/Streaming: ESPN3 (link N/A at the moment)
Local Radio: 104.5 FM

Come to the biggest indoor party of the year! The Ferocious Feast is fun for everyone with music, beer tasting, games and activities for all ages and great food. Enjoy a station-style buffet with options to choose your own favorite menu items.

Each person will receive tickets to be used at whichever station you prefer. Use them all at one station or visit each one.

The feast is open from 5:00-6:45 p.m.

The UAlbany men's basketball team tips off against New Hampshire in the annual "Big Purple Growl" game at 7:00 p.m. Feast + game package and "feast only" pricing options available.

Click the ticket link above to register!

 

bpg_18_facebook_event.jpg

UAlbany Wins																																	
** Albany stats are the left side in each grouping **																																	
Opponent	Type	PTS		FGM		FGA		FG%		3PTM		3PTA		3PT%		FTM		FTA		FT%		RBG		AST		STL		BLK		TO		FOUL	
Iona		OOC	69	67	24	26	62	59	38.7%	44.1%	4	4	15	22	26.7%	18.2%	17	11	19	14	89.5%	78.6%	47	27	6	14	1	6	0	3	13	7	16	21
Boston U	OOC	88	74	32	29	56	65	57.1%	44.6%	3	8	5	27	60.0%	29.6%	21	8	29	11	72.4%	72.7%	38	27	11	13	2	7	1	4	11	7	15	21
Yale		OOC	80	72	32	28	59	67	54.2%	41.8%	3	7	14	28	21.4%	25.0%	13	9	19	13	68.4%	69.2%	40	30	16	10	4	6	3	5	15	13	15	17
Oneonta		OOC	102	77	37	23	72	57	51.4%	40.4%	7	10	21	25	33.3%	40.0%	21	21	28	28	75.0%	75.0%	48	31	17	13	4	3	0	3	7	14	24	28
Dartmouth	OOC	91	73	34	27	64	49	53.1%	55.1%	8	8	17	17	47.1%	47.1%	15	11	16	12	93.8%	91.7%	28	25	13	11	8	5	0	7	12	20	13	19
Holy Cross	OOC	78	62	31	24	58	48	53.4%	50.0%	10	5	21	18	47.6%	27.8%	6	9	10	14	60.0%	64.3%	32	23	18	11	5	3	1	4	7	9	15	14
Colgate		OOC	75	69	25	25	59	55	42.4%	45.5%	6	8	18	22	33.3%	36.4%	19	11	23	16	82.6%	68.8%	39	24	14	9	7	7	1	1	11	9	15	20
Columbia	OOC	86	82	28	31	62	61	45.2%	50.8%	6	9	13	20	46.2%	45.0%	24	11	29	18	82.8%	61.1%	37	36	13	19	11	3	1	3	9	16	15	25
Bryant		OOC	84	68	33	24	61	61	54.1%	39.3%	9	11	17	26	52.9%	42.3%	9	9	13	16	69.2%	56.3%	40	27	21	21	2	10	2	4	14	9	14	16
Siena		OOC	74	69	26	24	55	50	47.3%	48.0%	5	9	15	20	33.3%	45.0%	17	12	25	17	68.0%	70.6%	30	27	11	10	8	5	1	3	12	16	15	22
Canisius	OOC	68	65	26	28	53	61	49.1%	45.9%	2	6	10	22	20.0%	27.3%	14	3	20	7	70.0%	42.9%	33	29	11	19	2	8	3	1	12	10	11	20
Kent State	OOC	78	68	23	28	46	68	50.0%	41.2%	7	3	18	20	38.9%	15.0%	25	9	32	13	78.1%	69.2%	32	35	20	13	4	4	4	2	11	11	18	25
Stony Brook	AE	78	65	29	25	55	60	52.7%	41.7%	6	10	9	20	66.7%	50.0%	14	5	17	8	82.4%	62.5%	37	28	20	17	2	5	8	5	11	9	11	18
Maine		AE	84	66	21	21	58	56	36.2%	37.5%	7	6	17	22	41.2%	27.3%	35	18	44	27	79.5%	66.7%	43	38	13	14	3	4	6	4	9	12	23	32
UMass-Lowell	AE	70	62	24	25	52	54	46.2%	46.3%	3	7	12	21	25.0%	33.3%	19	5	22	8	86.4%	62.5%	32	29	15	19	10	6	5	3	14	18	14	19
UMBC		AE	83	39	33	17	57	54	57.9%	31.5%	9	2	17	20	52.9%	10.0%	8	3	10	7	80.0%	42.9%	40	23	20	12	8	6	2	4	12	15	14	14
Stony Brook	AE	57	50	18	21	50	57	36.0%	36.8%	4	6	13	22	30.8%	27.3%	17	2	21	5	81.0%	40.0%	41	32	7	6	5	6	3	4	15	13	17	22
																																	
Tot. W		OOC	973	846	351	317	707	701	49.6%	45.2%	70	88	184	267	38.0%	33.0%	201	124	263	179	76.4%	69.3%	444	341	171	163	58	67	17	40	134	141	186	248
		AE	372	282	125	109	272	281	46.0%	38.8%	29	31	68	105	42.6%	29.5%	93	33	114	55	81.6%	60.0%	193	150	75	68	28	27	24	20	61	67	79	105
																																	
Avg. W		OOC	81.1	70.5	29.3	26.4	58.9	58.4	49.6%	45.2%	5.8	7.3	15.3	22.3	38.0%	33.0%	16.8	10.3	21.9	14.9	76.4%	69.3%	37.0	28.4	14.3	13.6	4.8	5.6	1.4	3.3	11.2	11.8	15.5	20.7
		AE	74.4	56.4	25.0	21.8	54.4	56.2	46.0%	38.8%	5.8	6.2	13.6	21.0	42.6%	29.5%	18.6	6.6	22.8	11.0	81.6%	60.0%	38.6	30.0	15.0	13.6	5.6	5.4	4.8	4.0	12.2	13.4	15.8	21.0
																																	
Tot. W			1345	1128	476	426	979	982	48.6%	43.4%	99	119	252	372	39.3%	32.0%	294	157	377	234	78.0%	67.1%	637	491	246	231	86	94	41	60	195	208	265	353
Avg. W			79.1	66.4	28.0	25.1	57.6	57.8	48.5%	43.6%	5.8	7.0	14.8	21.9	39.8%	32.1%	17.3	9.2	22.2	13.8	77.6%	64.4%	37.5	28.9	14.5	13.6	5.1	5.5	2.4	3.5	11.5	12.2	15.6	20.8
																																	
UAlbany Losses																																	
** Albany stats are the left side in each grouping **																																	
Opponent	Type	PTS		FGM		FGA		FG%		3PTM		3PTA		3PT%		FTM		FTA		FT%		RBG		AST		STL		BLK		TO		FOUL	
Monmouth	OOC	73	81	26	28	54	56	48.1%	50.0%	3	8	11	18	27.3%	44.4%	18	17	28	24	64.3%	70.8%	41	29	5	12	2	7	3	4	15	8	23	24
Memphis		OOC	58	67	21	23	61	49	34.4%	46.9%	4	4	17	17	23.5%	23.5%	12	17	15	24	80.0%	70.8%	38	33	8	10	4	7	2	11	14	12	18	16
Louisville	OOC	68	70	27	24	74	57	36.5%	42.1%	6	9	20	21	30.0%	42.9%	8	13	12	21	66.7%	61.9%	52	37	9	11	2	4	2	10	10	7	19	19
Hartford	AE	64	72	23	25	54	50	42.6%	50.0%	8	9	19	18	42.1%	50.0%	10	13	14	13	71.4%	100.0%	28	30	14	15	7	8	3	9	12	14	16	18
New Hampshire	AE	61	64	20	25	49	62	40.8%	40.3%	4	10	14	24	28.6%	41.7%	17	4	27	6	63.0%	66.7%	34	41	10	13	4	4	2	0	10	10	16	22
Binghamton	AE	66	79	24	24	59	52	40.7%	46.2%	5	6	16	16	31.3%	37.5%	13	25	16	32	81.3%	78.1%	33	35	9	12	4	4	2	4	12	10	22	15
Vermont		AE	50	61	20	22	51	51	39.2%	43.1%	1	6	11	16	9.1%	37.5%	9	11	12	16	75.0%	68.8%	30	35	3	9	2	3	6	6	11	10	17	14
																																	
Tot. L		OOC	199	218	74	75	189	162	39.2%	46.3%	13	21	48	56	27.1%	37.5%	38	47	55	69	69.1%	68.1%	131	99	22	33	8	18	7	25	39	27	60	59
		AE	241	276	87	96	213	215	40.8%	44.7%	18	31	60	74	30.0%	41.9%	49	53	69	67	71.0%	79.1%	125	141	36	49	17	19	13	19	45	44	71	69
																																	
Avg. L		OOC	66.3	72.7	24.7	25.0	63.0	54.0	39.2%	46.3%	4.3	7.0	16.0	18.7	27.1%	37.5%	12.7	15.7	18.3	23.0	69.1%	68.1%	43.7	33.0	7.3	11.0	2.7	6.0	2.3	8.3	13.0	9.0	20.0	19.7
		AE	60.3	69.0	21.8	24.0	53.3	53.8	40.8%	44.7%	4.5	7.8	15.0	18.5	30.0%	41.9%	12.3	13.3	17.3	16.8	71.0%	79.1%	31.3	35.3	9.0	12.3	4.3	4.8	3.3	4.8	11.3	11.0	17.8	17.3
																																	
Tot. L			440	494	161	171	402	377	40.0%	45.4%	31	52	108	130	28.7%	40.0%	87	100	124	136	70.2%	73.5%	256	240	58	82	25	37	20	44	84	71	131	128
Avg. L			62.9	70.6	23.0	24.4	57.4	53.9	40.3%	45.5%	4.4	7.4	15.4	18.6	27.4%	39.6%	12.4	14.3	17.7	19.4	71.7%	73.9%	36.6	34.3	8.3	11.7	3.6	5.3	2.9	6.3	12.0	10.1	18.7	18.3
																																	
Tot. (all)		1785	1622	637	597	1381	1359	46.1%	43.9%	130	171	360	502	36.1%	34.1%	381	257	501	370	76.0%	69.5%	893	731	304	313	111	131	61	104	279	279	396	481
Avg. (all)		74.4	67.6	26.5	24.9	57.5	56.6	46.1%	44.1%	5.4	7.1	15.0	20.9	36.2%	34.3%	15.9	10.7	20.9	15.4	75.9%	67.2%	37.2	30.5	12.7	13.0	4.6	5.5	2.5	4.3	11.6	11.6	16.5	20.0
			PTS		FGM		FGA		FG%		3PTM		3PTA		3PT%		FTM		FTA		FT%		RBG		AST		STL		BLK		TO		FOUL	

Edited by Eli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hopefully this week some of the banged up kids like Cremo get a chance to heal up a bit. Gotta tip the cap to Brown for dialing that defense in...pretty remarkable turnaround from OOC. Problem is now that offense is way off the OOC pace.

 

HcCg2nN.png

 

Behind a pay wall..but there was a pretty good article in the Athletic about this very issue. Essentially..that there's a fixed amount of talent regarding offense and defense that a team can employ..and it's up to the coach to determine the balance/focus. In other words..it's near impossible to have a strong offense or defense..with a weak "other"..and improve the "other" without negatively impacting the first strength. Kind of what we're seeing play out with the team.

 

https://theathletic.com/212788/2018/01/16/kenpom-success-in-march-could-hinge-on-how-much-capital-offensive-forces-invest-in-defense/

Edited by Phoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hopefully this week some of the banged up kids like Cremo get a chance to heal up a bit. Gotta tip the cap to Brown for dialing that defense in...pretty remarkable turnaround from OOC. Problem is now that offense is way off the OOC pace.

 

HcCg2nN.png

 

Behind a pay wall..but there was a pretty good article in the Athletic about this very issue. Essentially..that there's a fixed amount of talent regarding offense and defense that a team can employ..and it's up to the coach to determine the balance/focus. In other words..it's near impossible to have a strong offense or defense..with a weak "other"..and improve the "other" without negatively impacting the first strength. Kind of what we're seeing play out with the team.

 

https://theathletic.com/212788/2018/01/16/kenpom-success-in-march-could-hinge-on-how-much-capital-offensive-forces-invest-in-defense/

 

 

That's very interesting, we are seeing it play out right now with this team I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opinion of whom? A sportswriter?

 

Every team has a certain amount of talent. A coach's job is to get the maximum amount of this talent to surface.

Seems like more of an energy/intensity issue... where every team has a certain amount of energy to exert. And there,

the coach's job is to find the balance of energy he wants his team to split between the O and D.

 

We were walking around, watching, and picking our asses on defense. Almost seemed like we exerted zero energy.

Seems like we could allot a good amount of energy to our D without affecting our O output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parking cost double today at Dutch, price gougers...

Just fyi for those without a pass.

Unfortunately, it’s stupid decisions like this that discourage a potential new fan from attending more UA games. We have a golden opportunity to perhaps hook some new fans, and the administration chooses to gouge them. I went to the Siena - Manhattan game at the TU Center last evening, and they only charged $8.00 in the commercial parking garage right next to the arena. Didn’t think that was too bad for downtown Albany. Just my opinion, but it’s a bad business decision to gouge a potential new fan $10 for on campus parking.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Parking cost double today at Dutch, price gougers...

Just fyi for those without a pass.

Unfortunately, it’s stupid decisions like this that discourage a potential new fan from attending more UA games. We have a golden opportunity to perhaps hook some new fans, and the administration chooses to gouge them. I went to the Siena - Manhattan game at the TU Center last evening, and they only charged $8.00 in the commercial parking garage right next to the arena. Didn’t think that was too bad for downtown Albany. Just my opinion, but it’s a bad business decision to gouge a potential new fan $10 for on campus parking.

 

 

Well it's more about making $ than butts in the seat, it seems for them. Athletic Admin/Dept can't complain of attendance when they jack ticket prices in general and then price gouge parking on higher attended games. (At least the parking for this game is what I've heard..shall see if it happens, but I believe they have done it in the past so pretty sure it's accurate)

Edited by MRSGDG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the parking fees an attempt to raise funds for sefcu improvements or building of a parking garage? If so I would have no problem paying but I would love to know where the money goes.

 

excellent question and excellent point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are the parking fees an attempt to raise funds for sefcu improvements or building of a parking garage? If so I would have no problem paying but I would love to know where the money goes.

 

excellent question and excellent point.

Still doesn’t make good business sense to me. You want to build your fan base and would reap more profit by getting new folks to return, than by chasing potential new fans away through gouging them $10 for parking. #Business101

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Are the parking fees an attempt to raise funds for sefcu improvements or building of a parking garage? If so I would have no problem paying but I would love to know where the money goes.

excellent question and excellent point.

Nothing I've heard about price increases for parking has anything to do with capital upgrades to parking lots. Not that I hear much...but :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...