DaneFan2k3

What I was suggesting would be almost a daily thing - i.e. you'd have a Pinned Topic called "Media Links - Thursday, January 22". So then that drives people to the site on a daily basis. That way, if you changed it daily (assuming you were able to do this, time-wise), then you won't have old links sitting around as you pointed out. But then you also won't have a million different topics, where one person posts about a TU article, there is commentary about it, then someone else starts a new topic about a different article, or about the same article but with a different viewpoint, etc. This also assumes, I guess, that you can delete a whole thread when you're done with it.

The kid definitely has to be given some benefit of doubt, however I just felt if the school had to expel him - that's pretty harsh. I guess I'm cynical in that I can't see an administrator at a school being really "out to get" this kid, or any kid (ok maybe some, but not most). So to get the maximum of an explusion - I don't know. But then again he could turn out to just be immature and he will grow up. I just thought it was interesting.

One thing I have seen on some of the Rivals sites and in other places is that the site moderators pin up a thread re: newspaper links and other online coverage on a daily basis. I know that sometimes people will post a link to a TU article if no one else has for that day (I just did that for today, Sunday the 18th). But if there were a pinned thread just for these posts (no commentary), that would give people a great way to see what is being said about the Great Danes on a daily basis. I know that the front page does have links to the newspaper websites, however I personally forget about them daily. Then, each of our posters could see this thread, and if they know of another article somewhere else for that day, could post the link in that pinned thread. Also, by doing something like that daily and then it disappearing (with the next day's media thread), it wouldn't clutter up the main hoops board (where old posts go to die when people are done with them). Just a thought.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...sdate=1/18/2004 Times Union story about Zoellner and Jordan, and interesting that Will Brown calls Jordan the best player on the team when everyone is healthy. Little healthy competition with Jamar next year is in the works.

Although this is not a Siena-bashing board, and I do understand the concept of not turning your back on someone ... according to today's (Saturday's) Times Union one of Siena's recruits got expelled from his prep/high school, yet they are hopeful he can regain his eligibility by transferring to another school and continuing to play there. What does that say about the quality of the player as a person? Should they be recruiting this type of person? I guess class isn't high on Lanier's list of priorities... to be expelled from school, you have to be pretty screwed up, despite what the article says (that is was a "lot of little incidents"). Whether it's one big incident or a lot of little incidents, I doubt the kid didn't know he was in danger of being expelled. It's kind of like Laettner being caught and suspended five games for substance abuse in the NBA. You have to be caught three times to get a five game suspension. Hello idiot, after the first time, or second time, stop what you're doing!

I think predominantly those recruiting services talk to the kid or his parents or coach to find out what schools have contacted him, and run with the list. I know that Insiders and their sites generally also list whether the player has been extended a scholarship and/or scheduled an official visit. So I would think that even if a kid had been contacted by multiple schools, he might tell the recruiting person (or his family might) about the schools that he likes the most, even if there were more. For instance, some marginal kids probably get contacted by D-II schools and you don't see them on the list, 'cause the kid probably doesn't mention them. Also, the kid could have been contacted by somewhere he doesn't want to go, and doesn't list them on purpose.

http://www.albany.edu/housing/importantdates.html Looks like the 18th.

I think it's great that he's back, and it's great that the school didn't turn their backs on him when he had some trouble. Even if he can't catch up with the academics from the fall semester, he could possibly (I think) get this year of eligibility back and be with us next season.

Just to go to the Scooby comment, I really don't know how you would make a Great Dane that didn't look at least a little bit like Scooby Doo. Or Marmaduke, or something like that. That doesn't mean it's a good logo, but I just don't know how you could do it without having it be "abstract" (a la Hartford's silhouetted Hawk) and not look like Scooby Doo. MikeDanes04, I don't know that the baby Dane is necessarily a boy or a girl. I don't think they've said either way. The little brother angle is fine, but if you make it a baby girl Dane, then you (in theory) can draw in the girls/women fans. In theory. I don't think it being male or female will have any impact at all, but maybe.

It says the contest is for students, but it doesn't say if they will reject at-large names thrown out by the general public. I think it would be a nice touch if they made it a girl Dane, since Damian is obviously a male. Although I suppose it could be Damian's "little brother" as well. But then you'd have a male mascot and a female, so that you could play both sides. Put it in a UAlbany womens' jersey for basketball games, etc.

1.) I think if you un-enroll from school while in good standing, you are allowed to come back to the same school without sitting out a year, although you lose a year of eligibility (??). I remember reading about this in the Times Union when Gallup was going then coming back then going again. They speculated at the time that although he had unenrolled from classes, he could still come back to UA until he enrolled full-time elsewhere. Obviously when you un-enroll, you put yourself at jeopardy for not being in good academic standing, though. So assuming Hughes has un-enrolled (he would be foolish not to if he hasn't been around all semester), then he could conceivably come back at some point ... at least in theory, going on what that article said a couple years ago. Just throwing it out there. Someone back me up or refute it, but I think that's about correct. 2.) UAlbany Division I, or all-time all-Division I? That would be quite a research project, as I'm sure the NCAA doesn't have "futility" standings in its recordbooks. Also, I'm sure that even the worst of the worst start-up all-time Division I teams played some cupcakes, i.e. a local Division II or NAIA school to get at least one or two wins. So it would be quite a debate. 3.) Something to be looked up for sure. 4.) Ditto, although they say that any publicity is good publicity.

Well, we were undermanned against Wagner and still got out to a big lead. We just failed to capitalize and put them away. So if you figure that happens once or twice more and we ARE able to put them away (or, looking at it another way, someone doesn't make an adjustment defensively like Mike Deane did), then I think that we could still win a couple of games. I admit it's not as likely with all the injuries, but college basketball is a strange game. Anything can happen. Who knows, there could be some walkon that the coaching staff knows about and brings on just to give a little spark. I doubt it, but again, anything could happen.

I agree he has been dead weight and it would be better for the team if he moved on... However, is there any way for the school or coaching staff to gracefully tell him not to apply for a waiver? and/or to basically tell him even if you get the waiver, you're not welcome back and we won't honor another year of scholarship for you? I am just wondering if anyone knows the legality of it with the NCAA. Obviously, you could choose to non-renew any scholarship at any time, but no one does that so as not to risk a hit to the credibility of the school and coaching staff (at least they don't do it when the kid is in good standing). However, let's say the NCAA gave him the waiver and he was free to come back. The school would probably have to tell him they didn't want him to come back (assuming that was the case), because I don't think there is any other way to get around it. Also, it really wouldn't make sense for him to come back. Too many players next season as it is.

But even if that were true, wouldn't that mean he was out of eligibility after this year anyhow? They classify you due to playing overseas (I dont know this is the case, I'm going off what you said) and then that is it, you don't regain years. You start as a soph. and you can play for three years, regardless of your academic year. But in any event, I do not believe he can apply for a redshirt. 20% of 27 scheduled games is 5.4 games. So assuming they round up for your benefit, our sixth game was Sacred Heart on the 20th. He got injured on the 27th, I believe. So going off what I understand to be true (20% of games), he would be ineligible.

ESPN reported the kid's name as Kevin Mormin, 7-2, just received scholarship offer from Pitt and was scheduling his official visit. Baylor and Louisville were also looking at him hard.

21 point lead ... 12 point lead ... ouchie. That hurts big time. And Boston U beat Michigan tonight. That is LEGIT. We're in some trouble. But I think we already knew that.

I found these photos on Yahoo!, they're not much (ok, they're almost nothing), but that's all they had from this game from the AP:

"I thought Warner was short-changed by not being given 4 years to show improvement and I hope we do not make that same mistake with Patterson." The only thing I would again say to that is she was here for a lot longer than four years, and Binghamton didn't come in and stink up the D-I level. They too came in from D-II, yet their recruiting immediately stepped up to bat. Her teams didn't seem to be improving at all in her final couple of years, even if the talent she brought in was improving. I even consulted the electronic abacus, and it said that her wins and losses didn't reflect the improving talent. (And although some other people ignored it, my abacus told me that she had just as many misses as she did hits during that time).

My electronic abacus counts exactly zero balls at your house. I made some valid points in the last two posts, yet you dismiss them as irrelevant because you just want to rip Trina and her lack of recruiting? You don't want to provide any evidence, as I attempt to do, or to hear another point of view. You yourself bring up the point about the hits and misses of recruiting, yet you neglect the fact that if you have two more scholarships that you could fairly easily get another dud soaking up money. I guess that's not realistic. Hell, if Scott Beeten had 15 scholarships imagine the STUDS we'd have gotten with those extra two grants? We'd be amazing! Amazingly out $30,000 per year, that is. So sack up and give me some evidence, rather than just slamming one coaching staff and getting down on all fours for the other. You yourself say "Warner left the program with good players." Well I'll agree with that, and add "it's about time." Those players were pretty much all she had at the Division I level, so I guess it's "too little, too late" for the new high school coach, eh?

Also, as a side post, I agree that the two scholarships can help. I'm just not sure how much, there are a lot of factors that go into that. Like you said, the more swings you take the more hits you are going to get. But if you look at it another way, the more swings you take, the more misses you are going to have as well. So let's say Will had those two extra scholarship spots available to him. Going by your post, you're rating Will as essentially a .500 hitter, a 3-1-3 hitter: three hits (Levine, Iati, Wilson), one strikeout (Banks), and three "fielder's choices" (Martin, Hughes, Knotts). (Yes, I know you put two of the hits as HR's, but I'm not going to get into slugging percentage here). So if he had two more mythical scholarships, it's safe to say he could have gotten one hit, and either one fielder's choice (wait and see) OR one more out. Now, the more "outs" you have, that is to say the more busts you have, the worse off you are, tying up the money for four years in a kid that sucks. The reality is that although most scholarship are renewable on an annual basis, if you recruit someone who sucks, most times you are stuck with them. You either have to force them to transfer and make it look like you didn't, or live with the mistake. All I was trying to say is that the women don't have a huge advantage with the extra scholarships, because you can just as easily miss as you can hit.

I agree, they all suck, all of Patterson's recruits SUCK. Let me just say that out loud. I see no one worth a damn. I want to make that clear. But I'm asking you, what is the reason? Which is it? I'm trying to figure the REASON why the recruits suck. I don't think it's as simple as Patterson not being able to recruit, because for quite some time I think you could say the same thing about Warner. If some of the assistants are the same, or were for last year at least, then why did we end up with crappy players? Someone is overruling someone(s)? Or is it really that Mari was a master recruiter (who just so happened to NOT get any good recruits in the previous few years, leading to our pitiful D-I record to date)? I mean, Mari Warner did recruit a fairly crappy bunch of players before landing Becky, Dani, Alicia and Jen Schumacher. I think Jones is a serviceable D-I player, but not a stud. Sweetland has improved, but didn't show much her first three years. I'd call her marginal. O'Bannon, a Warner recruit, is absolutely horrible. Speedy was also pretty bad at times, and left the program. Nicole Johnson doesn't play from that era. Jess McGinlay was very hot and cold, but had her moments. Chris Gray was a decent defender but not much else, Shan'tel Ali didn't pan out at all. Both not up to par. Go back further ... Liz Tucker was obviously a great one; Caffell played well also. Conners, DiMicco didn't do much at all. If you look at both my paragraphs there, I count eight that you could call "good" (Becky, Dani, Alicia, Jen, Maree, Liz, Cara). I would put two "marginal" (Sarah S and Jess McG), and I would rate seven as "busts" (Chris, Shan'tel, Marie, Dawn, Nicole, Speedy, Taryn). Obviously these are my personal ratings and you may or may not disagree. Then go back to the beginning of the D-I era. Binghamton was kicking our asses with quite a bit of regularity, even while at the D-II level. They came up and made an immediate impact in D-I and the America East. So obviously you can't blame the changing of divisions for our lack of recruits. And Warner was working with 13, just like Patterson is, so why have we sucked for SO long? You both missed my main point, which was if you're going to say that Patterson's recruits are bunk, and none are going to pan out .... then you're essentially saying one of the following: a-1.) Mari was hands off, let her assistants find those good players, and those same assistants are being overlooked in their evaluations by Patterson a-2.) Mari was hands off, let her assistants find those good players, but they suddenly can't recruit anymore a-3.) Mari was hands off, let her assistants find those good players, but the new assistants suck so it's now canceling out the good ones b-1.) Mari was hands on, and played a large part in her recruiting, found those kids herself, so the jury is out on the assistants b-2.) Mari was hands on, and played a large part in her recruiting, found those kids herself, and overruled the assistants to find good players (and now those same assistants are steering Patterson wrong) c-1.) Patterson overruled the current assistants who were holdovers from the Warner era and picked up the crappy players against their advice c-2.) Patterson agreed with the current assistants who were holdovers from the Warner era and they all agreed on the crappy players and they all suck d.) The assistants are crappy recruiters, and always have been, and Mari did her own recruiting over her crappy assistants, and Trina doesn't recruit well so she listened to the crappy assistants and ended up with crappy players Which is it, or which combinations is it?

In terms of going up against the MAAC, despite what I've said in past posts (that it's a bad idea), the more I think about it, the better it actually seems. The Pepsi, to my knowledge, is almost barren during the MAAC tournament. (Alright, that's stretching it, but it's so big that it's hard to fill.) But the RACC could actually have thousands of people and look filled for the Amercia East Tournament, which would be a boon to UAlbany and the league. And I don't really believe that there is a big public showing of support for either league, outside of UA and Siena fans who were going to come to their games anyway. Joe Fan doesn't just up and go to tournament games in Albany, at least not in any great number. So having two basketball tournaments to go to won't be a problem, since most likely unrelated people weren't going to go anyhow. The only potential downfall would be hotel space, but I presume that between downtown, near school and near the airport it wouldn't be a big problem. Thousands of people come into the area for a simultaneous Giants camp and Saratoga opening weekend, so we should be able to hold two tournaments. Another potential downfall would be media coverage. We all know that the TU is all over Siena's nuts, so to speak. Channel 13 would probably be fair to both schools, WTEN loves Siena and doesn't cover UA, Fox would be fair, and I don't ever watch Channel 6 or Capital News 9.

Just to play devil's advocate to the original post, I don't see where the two extra permissible scholarships per year (15 for women vs. 13 for men) gives the women a huge advantage toward getting good faster. All that really means is that you can push two existing players to the bench and bring in two recruits of your own if there is a head coaching change. More players is not always necessarily better, is my point. Then, looking at the fact that Learn didn't get good til this year, you have to give all of Patterson's recruits at least that much time to see if they develop, before writing them off as garbage. And last but not least, playing devil's advocate further, you have to look at the fact that if you're going to blame Coach Patterson for her recruits, you're essentially saying two things: 1.) Mari Warner did all of the recruiting of the current players who were heldover; and furthermore 2.) Mari and Trina's assistants do none of the recruiting. In Patterson's first year, two of the three assistants were heldover (I believe) from the Mari Warner era. So you're essentially saying that they had no say in either Mari's recruits (which was a positive since they turned out to be good), or that they have no say under Patterson (which is a negative since the current players don't appear to be panning out). So which is it, if either? I think we all know it's not always the head coach deciding who to go after or following up on leads ...

There is really no way around the break, since getting any home games for teams our level is hard. I wasn't at the game, so I have no clue about the 644 mark being accurate or not.

... the exclamation point than in posts by our esteemed 'professor'. It's like the man has caps lock and the 1 key stuck down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!