CIM's BLOG: UMe men goes JUCO-International recruiting route

[bcbc55]

After tonight's tough 89-79 loss to Albany on the road the Blackbears3-12 in AE conference play, 6- 24 overall will finish in 8th place and face the 14-1 first place Vermont Catamounts this coming Saturday. March 3rd regardless of the outcome of this game's results.

However, before that date they have to play that same Vermont team at home on Tuesday night to close out their regular season conference schedule in Bangor and then head back to play Vermont at Burlington on Saturday, March 3rd.

This means that they will play Vermont twice in 5 days. with 3 practice days between games.

Which team has the advantage Maine or Vermont and some might consider this a no nothing game, but how will both teams play this so called possibly by some, meaningless regular season final game?

Some questions concerning this unusual scheduling situation.

1. Will both coaches play to win?
2. Will one coach play to win and the other to lose?
3. Will teams play the way they will in their tourney game?
4. Will teams try something new?
5. Which team does this situation favor?
6. Will both teams just go through the motions?
7. Is this game really meaningless?
8. Should one team forfeit?
9. Should Maine play this game in the "PIT" as Vermont plays on a small college facility.
10. Will this game draw any better crowd then any if the other 7 home games because of this situation?

The answer to these 10 questions could make the game a lot more interesting then if they were not going to play again in 5 days when it is a one and done, win or go home tournament situation.

The outcome of this game is meaningless as a win or a loss as Vermont finishes first in the conference and win or lose Maine finishes in 8th place and win or lose they have to play each other in 5 days.

For this one maybe meaningless game which team would you rather be?

[thebam]

1. Will both coaches play to win? Yes
2. Will one coach play to win and the other to lose? No
3. Will teams play the way they will in their tourney game? Why wouldn't they
4. Will teams try something new? in the last game? probably nothing new to try
5. Which team does this situation favor? Vermont plays at home .
6. Will both teams just go through the motions? No
7. Is this game really meaningless? Only in terms of standings
8. Should one team forfeit? Is this actually a question
9. Should Maine play this game in the "PIT" as Vermont plays on a small college facility.No
10. Will this game draw any better crowd then any if the other 7 home games because of this situation?no

The answer to these 10 questions could make the game a lot more interesting then if they were not going to play again in 5 days when it is a one and done, win or go home tournament situation.

The outcome of this game is meaningless as a win or a loss as Vermont finishes first in the conference and win or lose Maine finishes in 8th place and win or lose they have to play each other in 5 days.

For this one maybe meaningless game which team would you rather be?

[bcbc55]

While we wait anxiously to see who the UMaine women's teams first round opponent will be in the NCAA's womens March Madness Big Dance here are their current Team rankings and the America East Conferences rankings too.

The rankings I used for this article are not one of the ones made available to the selection committee but is the one that I use and refer to during the regular season. It is very accurate, has a lot of information for both teams and conferences and they have no connection to the NCAA or the NCAA selection process.

Maine is 70th RPI (Rating Percentage Index) out of the 350 women's D-1 team and a SOS (strength of schedule) ranking is 137 of the 350 teams. 64 teams make the "Women's Big Dance" compared to the men's that have 2 play in games for 68 teams.

The America East Conference is currently the 20th ranked conference out of the 32 conferences and it's SOS is 23rd.

Compare this to the lowest ranked team so far that has already qualified by winning their conference tournament is the Grambling team out of the SWAC (Southwest Athletic Conference. Grambling is ranked 208 in team RPIand their SOS is 335 out of the 350 teams.

The SWAC conference is the 31st ranked conference out of the 32 in RPI and 3lst in SOS.

Looking at different ranking systems of RPI's and SOS rankings of the teams and the conferences that they play in and have already at this very moment have qualified for the tournament by winning their conference tourney it looks like that Maine could get as high as a 14th first round seed seeing their stats above.

But you never know, as there are a lot of other factors besides RPI and SOS rankings and is just one of the many other factors (nine) which carry more weight then RPI's and SOS's that goes into these seeding positions and selection of teams. Many of which favor giving the top conferences 6 or 7 teams being selected and the lower conferences get just 1 which has been the history over the years.

However, statistically speaking America East has been a one horse pony in the past years selection seedings. They are 20 of the 32 conferences which puts them at the 37.5% RPI position ahead of 12 other conferences. AE is also in SOS at 23rd of the 32 conferences ahead of 9 conferences at 28.1%.

[umaine67]

This from mid-February post from bcbc55: (the Maine women's team) "have reduced their 3 attempts also."

Ummmm ... did you know that the women's team attempted 677 3-point shots in 34 games last season (2016-17).
This season: 760 3-point shots in 32 games.

Seems like someone needs a lesson a lesson in remedial math!

[bcbc55]

This from mid-February post from bcbc55: (the Maine women's team) "have reduced their 3 attempts also."

Ummmm ... did you know that the women's team attempted 677 3-point shots in 34 games last season (2016-17).
This season: 760 3-point shots in 32 games.

Seems like someone needs a lesson a lesson in remedial math!

"umaine67: If you give me the date of that post in mid-February I will gladly go back and double check my remedial math.

[umaine67]

You made the post. I copy and pasted it directly from one of your posts.
Sorry, if you can't remember it, but it's there. Back in February. Might have been Feb. 10.
But, the women's team has taken a LOT more 3-pointers this season than last year.
I'm not trying to stir up anything. Just trying to set the record straight.

[bcbc55]

You made the post. I copy and pasted it directly from one of your posts.
Sorry, if you can't remember it, but it's there. Back in February. Might have been Feb. 10.
But, the women's team has taken a LOT more 3-pointers this season than last year.
I'm not trying to stir up anything. Just trying to set the record straight.

"umaine67": I understand that. No problem.

If I remember correctly i was referring to the 4 games Maine played from Feb. 14 (mid-February) Vermont, Albany regular season games and 2 tourney games before the championship game against Albany.

I was referring to those 4 games as Maine had reduced its 3 attempts from 42% of the field goal attempts (at one point in the season) as 3's out of their field goal attempts to 36.7% of their FGA's as 3's in those 4 games and that was as well as they had played all season long.

I also mentioned that they had gone inside more to Sutton which gave them a more well rounded offensive attack and helped get better three point looks.

In those 4 games Maine took 304 FGA's and 110 of those attempts were 3's for the 36.7% and in the championship game they went back to taking over 40% of their FGA's as threes against Hartford.

Sorry if I mislead you about them reducing their threes for the season when I meant just the past 4 games before the Hartford game.

I was praising Maine for reducing their 3 attempts and going inside more as two of the reasons they played so well in those 4 games in a row.

I can understand why you thought I needed a remedial math course. Good line.

[umaine67]

bcbc55, your post referring to Maine women cutting down on 3's was posted on Feb. 10, so your recollection of the games being from Feb. 14 on is obviously incorrect.
It seems you have a great dislike for the 3-point shot, and continue to encourage teams to take fewer of them.
Yet, the current Maine women's team has advanced to the NCAA tournament and has taken far more 3's than it took last season.

[bcbc55]

bcbc55, your post referring to Maine women cutting down on 3's was posted on Feb. 10, so your recollection of the games being from Feb. 14 on is obviously incorrect.
It seems you have a great dislike for the 3-point shot, and continue to encourage teams to take fewer of them.
Yet, the current Maine women's team has advanced to the NCAA tournament and has taken far more 3's than it took last season.

"umaine"67: My dislike of the three is the way some teams get their 3's and the Maine women prior to the Stonybrook game the UMaine women were not going inside-outside with kickouts to get their threes for me as a coach. They were not even getting many 3 attempts off dribble penetration and kick outs. They were getting them with perimeter passing, ball reversal and coming off screens on the move from one wing side to the other wing side.

Also, I am a firm believer that "If you live by the three, you can also die by the three", especially in the pressure of the one and done win or go home post season although Maine took 62 3 point attempts out of 162 FGA's in the AE Tourney which means they took 38.3% of their FGA's as 3's and were 22 for 62 for 3's for 35.1%. So they certainly lived through that pressure series of games in the tournament.

There was a point in the season season I can't remember when (as you know my age 80 plus that probably caused my remedial math) that started this back and forth, I posted that they were shooting 29% from beyond the ARCtic cold 3 point line and taking over 42% of the FGA's as 3's so that is why I posted that they were reducing their 3 attempts and slowly game by game increasing their 3 point %.

When I get time I will try to find that post.

Enjoy the back and forth, very interesting, informative, timely, relevant and accountable posts and responses on your part.

[umaine67]

As you should know, bcbc55, there are more ways to get open 3's than just by dribble penetration/kick-outs.
Crisp and fast perimeter passing, particularly vs. a zone defense (also vs. trapping defenses) very often produces wide-open perimeter looks.
As they say, the ball moves faster than the feet!