|
|
Post by universityjim on Jan 18, 2024 19:12:12 GMT -6
Miami (8-9 2-3 KenPom #244) at Ball State (9-8 1-4 KenPom #268)
Miami is 2-6 on the road. Ball State is 7-2 at home.
This is the 110th meeting. Miami leads the series 66-43. Ball State leads 27-25 in Muncie and 13-11 in Worthen Arena.
- First Game in Series: 12/17/1935 (Ball State 29 Miami 22)
- Ball State won the last meeting 75-61 on 1/14/2023 in Muncie.
- Ball State has won 3 of the last 4 vs. Miami. (believe it or not)
Miami Results
at Evansville (L) 64-72
Texas State (L) 65-75
Coppin State (W) 76-48
Eastern Illinois (W) 76-64
at St Bonaventure (L) 60-90
Spalding (W) 82-43
at Marshall (W) 79-74
at Ohio State (L) 64-84
at Davidson (L) 61-79
at Wright State (L) 82-92
Vermont (W) 70-69
Wilberforce (W) 119-69
Western Michigan (L) 74-83
at Toledo (L) 64-68
at Buffalo (W) 86-65
Eastern Michigan (W) 71-54
Bowling Green (L) 73-78
Miami Starters vs. Bowling Green
04 Darweshi Hunter (W 6-5 200 GR) 12.3 PPG/41% FG/36% 3PT (34)/4.2 RPG/30.1 MPG (Started all 17 games)
25 Bryce Bultman (F 6-5 200 GR) 8.5 PPG/46% FG/30% 3PT (13)/5.1 RPG/28.7 MPG (Started all 17 games)
35 Reece Potter (C 7-1 210 FR) 6.8 PPG/49% FG/44% 3PT (4)/2.8 RPG/14.5 MPG (Started 4 of 11 games played)
11 Mekhi Cooper (G 6-1 160 FR) 6.6 PPG/46% FG/41% 3PT (12)/2.9 RPG/24.2 MPG (Started 14 of 16 games played)
00 Eian Elmer (W 6-6 190 FR) 5.8 PPG/55% FG/39% 3PT (7)/3.9 RPG/15.1 MPG (Started 4 of 17 games)
Others
45 Anderson Mirambeaux (C 6-8 305 SR) 13.6 PPG/51% FG/31% 3PT (5)/3.8 RPG/19.1 MPG (Leading scoring average. Has only played 8 games. Started 0)
13 Ryan Mabrey (G 6-5 195 SO) 8.9 PPG/42% FG/39% 3PT (32)/1.6 RPG/22.4 MPG (Third leading scorer. Played all 17 games and started 3)
21 Jaquel Morris (C 6-8 220 SO) 6.3 PPG/70% FG/00% 3PT (0)/4.0 RPG/17.5 MPG (Started 13 of 17 games)
DNP 01 Bradley Dean (G 6-2 170 JR) 6.2 PPG/38% FG/45% 3PT (17)/1.9 RPG/17.9 MPG (Started 2 of 12 games played)
DNP 02 Evan Ipsaro (G 6-0 200 FR) 7.9 PPG/46% FG/36% 3PT (13)/2.2 RPG/24.9 MPG (Started 11 of 15 games played)
As a Team:
-They score 74.5 PPG and give up 71.0
-The shoot 47% from the field and allow 44%
-Their 3pt average is 38% (8.4 per game) and they allow 29% (5.6 per game)
-As a team they shoot 70% from the Free-throw Line
-They have been out rebounded by their opponents 550-589 this season (32.4-34.6)
-They commit an average of 12.1 turnovers per game and force 12.6 per game (5.8 steals)
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Jan 18, 2024 20:13:20 GMT -6
Quite the battle of mid 200's juggernauts...
|
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Jan 18, 2024 20:17:12 GMT -6
The are alot bigger than we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 19, 2024 8:13:56 GMT -6
Usually, the MAC resolves itself in to readily recognizable tiers through the teams arranging themselves into bunches in the rankings. So far this season...not so much. Instead the teams are scattered pretty evenly through the rankings from Akron (95) to Buffalo (331).
The biggest separation is between Akron, and everyone else, with Akron maintaining some quality while the rest of the MAC is even more dismal than usual.
Western is sort of interesting. They started the season with a low ranking and had a very poor pre-conf run. But they are 4-1 in conference. KenPom still has them ranked below us. I think this is probably correct. Their conf wins are mostly close and/or against the weaker teams. It's tough to fool KenPom with this many games as a sample size.
It's likely we will spend the season on the bubble of making or not making the MAC tourney. Thus the home game against middle-of-the-pack Miami is a key game. For the record, I think we will make the tourney. There are just too many strong candidates for the four spots that won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2024 8:43:54 GMT -6
The weakness makes it hard to predict. On paper, 4 teams will be in without much chance of winning. There's a drop off after top 4(5?).
Some years that second tier produces a team that can get hot. Sometimes a top tier hits the skids at the end.
This year? As you say that top tier isn't that good.
Our season always was about freshman finding their way late, and maybe having a chance to beat somebody in Cleveland. Doesn't look like that's happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 19, 2024 9:47:38 GMT -6
Was just musing on how we are needing a win against a bad Miami team in a mostly empty arena to help us avoid being shut out of the MAC tourney. At one time, we were battling toe-to-toe on the national stage against one of GOAT Michael Jordan's monster Space Jam opponents.  Oh mercy mercy me Oh things ain't what they used to be |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2024 10:45:57 GMT -6
Good catch, Sherman. Things aren't the way they were and aren't going to be.
If we do get a team together nearly as good, it won't be around two years in a row. If we ever snag a player like Bonzi or TSmith, we will see them for a year.
Even a team like last year which made it look like we would be very strong this year, gone...
We can compete in the MAC in a year where we do better with less NIL money than 3 or 4 teams, or have a group on the verge and a player breaks out. Especially where other(s) get gut shot by the portal as we were and can't recover.
It's a new mid level AAU style world for mid majors, except little chance we ever sign a superstar.
|
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Jan 19, 2024 11:04:42 GMT -6
Remember, many of the players on that great team were transfers who were only here for two years.
Bring them in as freshman and we won't keep them. Bring them in as juniors and I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 19, 2024 11:17:52 GMT -6
Obviously there is zero chance that Bonzi would have stayed 4 years in the current environment.
But it's interesting though, when looking at the roster of the 88-89 team that beat Pitt in the tourney, you could see that team as still being feasible today. Not likely, to be sure, but feasible. It was comprised of holdovers that were not superstars, players that had just transferred in, and Jucos. The key transfers that came in either had recent legal issues, or had not worked out at a higher level, so they would not necessarily have been the most highly sought-after. Keeping that team together for the next year's sweet 16 run would have been difficult.
Of course, all this assumes you have a RECRUITER as a head coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2024 16:11:01 GMT -6
Some of those maybe couldn't even be recruited today for a number of reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Jan 19, 2024 18:14:19 GMT -6
Toledo has won 20 straight MAC regular season games? Dang.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 19, 2024 19:00:01 GMT -6
Toledo has won 20 straight MAC regular season games? Dang. Yeah, well our program has...uhh....a long tradition of existence for its players and the community at large. |
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jan 19, 2024 19:08:03 GMT -6
Obviously there is zero chance that Bonzi would have stayed 4 years in the current environment. But it's interesting though, when looking at the roster of the 88-89 team that beat Pitt in the tourney, you could see that team as still being feasible today. Not likely, to be sure, but feasible. It was comprised of holdovers that were not superstars, players that had just transferred in, and Jucos. The key transfers that came in either had recent legal issues, or had not worked out at a higher level, so they would not necessarily have been the most highly sought-after. Keeping that team together for the next year's sweet 16 run would have been difficult. Of course, all this assumes you have a RECRUITER as a head coach. There's no way even Majerus could recruit Kidd or McCurdy to Ball State these days. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2024 19:37:00 GMT -6
Obviously there is zero chance that Bonzi would have stayed 4 years in the current environment. But it's interesting though, when looking at the roster of the 88-89 team that beat Pitt in the tourney, you could see that team as still being feasible today. Not likely, to be sure, but feasible. It was comprised of holdovers that were not superstars, players that had just transferred in, and Jucos. The key transfers that came in either had recent legal issues, or had not worked out at a higher level, so they would not necessarily have been the most highly sought-after. Keeping that team together for the next year's sweet 16 run would have been difficult. Of course, all this assumes you have a RECRUITER as a head coach. There's no way even Majerus could recruit Kidd or McCurdy to Ball State these days. BSU gave Majerus slack to recruit them which would not likely be given today. I wonder what would have happened to them. 88-89, getting Billy Butts would be hard as well, but possible. The rest and how Majerus built all the pieces into the team we might be able to do. General right it would be hard to keep it together if we did. |
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jan 19, 2024 20:49:33 GMT -6
There's no way even Majerus could recruit Kidd or McCurdy to Ball State these days. BSU gave Majerus slack to recruit them which would not likely be given today. I wonder what would have happened to them. 88-89, getting Billy Butts would be hard as well, but possible. The rest and how Majerus built all the pieces into the team we might be able to do. General right it would be hard to keep it together if we did. It's not just that BSU wouldn't provide that slack today; it's that most schools probably care even less today about any issues they might have had. And that means a bigger market for their services. And probably better financial opportunities elsewhere. And without Kidd or McCurdy, Billy Butts, Chandler Thompson and rest would have been a nice little team, but they weren't going to do anything significant. |
|
