The Genesis Of A Fan

I'm not sure exactly how it all came together. In fact, it might not have been basketball related at all. Yet somehow I ended up in Cleveland on Saturday, November 15, 2008, along with three of my closest friends to take in the first game of the Oakland Golden Grizzlies basketball season. While we were all basketball fans, none of us had yet reached that point where it was considered a duty to attend every OU game possible, let alone a road game. I had personally been a pretty standard fan with little interest beyond what happened in March and if it meant I'd see my school's name on the bracket. November basketball games hardly registered with me, especially considering none of them were ever at home. But when the 2008-09 schedule came out, the Cleveland date looked to me an opportunity to see a game for once during the early months. As a student, mid-November can be a particularly painful part of the semester, just a few weeks prior to the onslaught of finals. Knowing this, I figured a roadtrip to Cleveland would be a nice way to get away, and I was fortunate a few other kindred spirits agreed.

We set out for Cleveland rather early, hoping to take in a bit of the town prior to watching the game. The drive, however, lasted much longer than anticipated thanks to a neverending rainstorm which followed us down I-75 and into Ohio. We passed Toledo but could barely make out the city's structures; the rain was that bad. Navigating Cleveland proved difficult as well, yet just like the initial plan, we somehow found our way. In our soaked clothes and waterlogged shoes, we managed to traverse the busy streets of Cleveland, though we were clearly in the minority as far as sports allegiances went. Most of the city's pedestrians were headed for the Quicken Loans Arena on this evening to witness its favorite son, LeBron James, take on the Utah Jazz. Clearly better times for Clevelanders.

Perhaps it was the combination of the nasty weather and the Cavaliers game, but on this night Cleveland State's Wolstein Center was largely empty. The facility itself has a wonderful facade and features two bowls not unlike Eastern Michigan's Convocation Center. Though during this season opener, that upper bowl could have been sectioned off as if it were an oversized football dome hosting a basketball game. The lower bowl was mostly a mix of what appeared to be casual observers and a few of those die-hard fans who proudly sport team apparel they likely bought 20 years ago. The student presence was laughable, with no discernible student section anywhere in the building. All of this despite the fact that the two teams taking the court that night would end up in their respective conference championship games in just four short months.

Prior to the tip, we had learned that one of Oakland's returning seniors, Derick Nelson, had suffered an injury the day before leaving for Cleveland which would threaten his season. As a novice Oakland fan at the time, one of my illustrious friends had to explain to me the significance of this situation. Oakland would have to lean on the contributions of two freshmen, Blake Cushingberry and Drew Maynard, at the forward position without Nelson in the lineup. This news didn't mean much to me then. Little did I know that just two years later, Nelson would be the player who willed the Grizzlies to a Summit League tournament championship, in turn providing me with a chance to fulfill a basketball fan's ultimate dream of storming the court.

Aside from Nelson's injury, there were other question marks for the team heading into the season. Shane Lawal was gone and the scrawny Keith Benson would get a chance to start in the post. Johnathon Jones was always a starter, but it was presumed that his contributions would increase even more in his junior campaign. These two players, perhaps more than any other, were to be responsible for whatever level of success would come to the Grizzlies in 08-09.

Within seconds of the tip against Cleveland State, all indications pointed to Oakland being just fine. I'll never forget the moment: Johnathon Jones had just got the ball off the tip, darted toward his side of the court, and found a streaking Keith Benson for a thunderous alley-oop dunk. It was a play that would be utilized throughout the season and one that clearly was representative of the roles of Jones as facilitator and Benson as low-post dominator. Even though it was not that long ago, if I had to point to a moment where I went from a casual Grizzlies fan to an intense fanatic, it was on that alley-oop dunk. The rest of the game had its ups and downs, and eventually Cleveland State pulled away in the waning minutes with the win. Even though Oakland lost the game, Benson had emerged with a double-double and Jones, despite having an off night, showed that facilitation would prove simpler with Benson occupying the paint.

Though our spirits were down a bit from the loss, my friends and I left Cleveland feeling good about our opportunity to support our school on the road. Opportunities to do it again would be few and far between for the rest of the season, but that night sparked in us a deeper connection with the program. I attended every subsequent home game that year and followed every road game through internet radio, live stats, or television - essentially whatever was available. One of my fondest memories of the rest of that season is of listening to the Oregon game with two friends huddled around a laptop with a bad Internet connection. Just as Oakland was making a push to send the game into overtime, the connection gave out. We wouldn't get the connection back until Johnathon Jones was making his mark in extra minutes, leading the Grizzlies to a rare west coast win over a Pac 10 school.

Since the early days of that 2008-09 season, I have found myself as committed as ever as a Golden Grizzlies fan. This blog was born out of that commitment with the purpose of sharing fan experiences and to further extend Oakland basketball's presence on the web, especially given the recent rise in team-specific blogs offering thoughtful, unique perspectives on the issues facing the teams they cover. Perhaps most important, I hope that stories like this and others offered previously help to ignite in readers a desire to become more involved as a fan - whether by attending one more home game than usual, taking a road trip to an away game, posting thoughts on a community forum, wearing OU apparel, or bringing up Golden Grizzlies basketball in casual conversation. As a "little" school in the shadow of some "big" competitors, every little bit we can do helps in the effort to bring all Grizzlies together.

Expectations: Odds And Ends

Whenever a new season is birthed, a certain range of expectations come with it. Coaches, players, administrators, media, and fans all have expectations, hopes, wishes. Throughout the week the Gameplan has laid out some of these for 2010-11, ranging from team leadership to fan participation. This feature concludes today by looking into other expectations for the new season. As always, keep in mind these are just from the perspective of one Golden Grizzly fan and others are certainly encouraged to share their own!

Look Good On TV

As has been the case lately, Oakland will have three home games televised on Fox Sports Detroit. One of the games is against Michigan State at the Palace, which should be well attended. The games we're most concerned with are the home games against IUPUI and IPFW. Both games will air live on FSD, presumably with the venerable Mario Impemba on the call. Even though the game is on television, it is absolutely essential that the game be well attended. The worst thing is to get a game on TV and have no one in the stands. My view of these games is that they should be a showcase for all the folks who are on the edge of actually coming out to a game at the O'Rena. If the stands are packed and that person sees the energy of the crowd on their TV screen, there is a better chance that they'll be inclined to check it out in person next time.

Paint The Palace Black And Gold

One of the aforementioned TV games is against the overlord of Michigan college basketball, the Michigan State Spartans. MSU will be darn tough to beat this season, but I do know that the Golden Grizzlies could be boosted by a supportive crowd at The Palace, if indeed that crowd sways toward Oakland. The harsh part about home games at The Palace is that a majority of the fans will no doubt be sporting green and white. This is just a fact of life in a state that hasn't fully embraced mid-major basketball and has tons and tons and tons of MSU alumni who came of age in East Lansing. It's wishful thinking on my part, but I hope to see a lot of black and gold in the stands on December 11.

Ticket Deals For The Lou Henson Tournament

I had made a habit of bringing out family members to the annual Summit League games that Oakland hosted around the holidays. The tickets, at least the last two seasons, were "buy one, get one free," which provided more incentive to get others involved over a period of time when students are not on campus and others might be more concerned with the holidays. This will likely be the case again this year for the Lou Henson Tournament at the O'Rena, so a great deal on tickets would surely be welcomed.

Fan Presence On The Road

Back in September, I put together "The Oakland Fan's 2010-11 Non-Conference Travel Guide" in an attempt to show casual observers how travel-friendly OU's schedule is this season. This was done in order to bring light to the fact that several of these games can be seen live with a four or five hour road trip. The post might be the most practical one ever published on the Gameplan. Based solely on the annual IPFW road trip, it's clear that Oakland fans will travel to take in a road game. I can only hope that some fans take advantage of this schedule, because they don't come around very often.

Packed Senior Night

Here's the thing: this year Senior Night is on the Saturday after Oakland shuts down for a week due to spring break. For new or casual fans, I can not stress enough the importance of this night. Not only will the Golden Grizzlies be playing what looks to be a solid (albeit young) South Dakota State team, it will also be the last chance to see Keith Benson, Will Hudson, and Larry Wright play a game in the O'Rena (barring any postseason home games). Larry Wright has been a solid two-year contributor, but Benson and Hudson have been at Oakland for five and four years, respectively. It's a chance to honor their very productive playing careers while rooting on the team in a tough late season conference match-up. The hope is that the O'Rena is packed despite the break.

At Least One Breakthrough Win

The games Oakland played against power-six teams last season all ended rather badly. The Golden Grizzlies will have seven opportunities against these schools in 2010-11, and one can only hope that at least one will result in a win for the program.

The NCAA Tournament

Last year was amazing, no doubt. The NCAA Tournament game was in Milwaukee, making travel relatively easy for Oakland fans via car. This year, however, it could be better. There are two first-weekend sites within driving distance of Rochester in Chicago and Cleveland. The hard part is actually getting to into the tournament, but it's clear that the locales set up nicely for Oakland. Obviously, every program wants to get to the NCAAs. It's not an easy feat, especially in the Summit League. However, OU returns a solid line-up and injects some new talent that should contribute. It's a long season, but boy would it be amazing to hear the Golden Grizzlies getting their name called on Selection Sunday again. We're in for a ride.

Expectations: Attendance

Attendance at the O'Rena has steadily grown over the past few years, especially in the realm of the student population. Last season, Oakland ranked third in the Summit League in average attendance and second in terms of the percentage of seats full. In fact, utilizing the listed O'Rena capacity of 3,000, Oakland sold 91% of seats on average for the season. That capacity is a bit misleading, however, as some of the biggest games at Oakland have had well over 3,000 people in attendance, including over 4,000 at a game against Missouri in 2003. Whatever the capacity, the fact remains that the O'Rena has had steady attendance figures which rank near the top in the conference.

Heading into the new season, there should be an expectation to keep these rates steady if not increase them. The program is coming off a championship season and NCAA Tournament appearance. Moreover, the team has a legitimate NBA prospect in the paint as well as several key players coming back. While marquee home games might be few and far between, there are enough storylines and noteworthy opponents to warrant the interest of casual fans. Capturing this section of the population is key. This will prove much easier to accomplish if the Golden Grizzlies can turn some heads during the slew of non-conference road games they play early in the season. If OU is able to pull off an upset over one of the BCS schools, the regional coverage will surely come flooding in. Thus, interest will grow.

The population we're more interested in is that of the students. This fall, Oakland University experienced its thirteenth straight year of enrollment growth, no doubt influenced by an incredibly large influx of transfer students. The overall number of students is 19,053, with undergrads making up 15,530 of that total. For fans who were once Pioneers, these numbers are probably rather astounding, though it's been clear over the past decade that student population growth has been a main priority of the administration. With over 15,000 students, one would expect to see more than a few scattered dozen occupying the student section during the games.

Fortunately, it appears that those sparsely attended games will be far from the norm for the foreseeable future. The student section last year was rather solid throughout the year, and one would expect that trend to continue especially given that the team should be solid once again. The main hurdle in increasing this number in the future will be directly linked to adding more student housing to the campus. It's no secret that students are much more likely to go to games, especially those on the weekends, if they are already living on the campus. Unfortunately, campus housing is pretty much maxed at this point, so the residential population can't swell at the same rate as overall student population growth. Thus, unless there is an increased initiative to get more commuter students involved with the student section, the growth of the Grizz Gang will be stunted, somewhat.

We continue to hope that there is a day when the O'Rena is packed for every game. The only thing holding this season back from breaking attendance records is the lack of those aforementioned marquee "names" that would draw in the casual basketball fan from the tri-county area. Otherwise, everything about Coach Kampe's program points to the fact that Oakland basketball should be a hot ticket in 2010-11. As fans, we must now step up to do our part. Bring a family member, a friend, or an alumni who hasn't reconnected with the university in years. They shouldn't be disappointed.

Expectations: Keith Benson

We realize that Oakland will need a complete team effort in order to be successful this season. A major part of that team, however, is center Keith Benson. His presence in the post gives the Golden Grizzlies an advantage over all other Summit League teams and helps to even match-ups against some of the power-six squads. Benson's performances this season will directly impact his standing in the NBA draft circles. The expectations for him are clearly high, as coverage throughout the off-season indicates. In dedicating one of these expectations posts to a single player, we do so to bring light to the overwhelming expectations facing Benson in 2010-11. Let's take a look back on some of the expectations heaped upon the OU big man this off-season.

• Named one of top non-BCS players to watch in 2010-11 by SportsIllustrated.com (link)
• Rivals.com's 2010-11 All-Senior Second team (link)
• First-teamer for Rivals.com's Preseason All-Low Major Team (link)
• Made ESPN's Andy Katz's list of top 2011 draft prospects (link)
• Featured on Fox Sports' Jeff Goodman's Mock 2011 NBA Draft (link)
• ESPN's Fran Fraschilla's "Ten Players To Know" From Small Conferences (link)
• Ranked the ninth best center NBA prospect by NBADraft.net (link)
• Ranked 36th on Rivals.com's Preseason Top 50 Players (link)
• Checks in as the sixth best senior NBA prospect from DraftExpress.com (link)
• Shows up on Luke Winn's (SI.com) Naismith Award watch list (link)
• Part of Rivals.com's Low-Major Frontcourts to Watch in 2010-11 (link)
• One of six "upper midwest" players named to Rush The Court's Impact Players (link)
• Named one of Blue Ribbon's Top 10 players in the country outside of Big 6 conferences (link)
• Projected as Summit League Player of the Year by every major preseason preview print publication
• Preseason Summit League Player of the Year as voted on by coaches, athletic directors, and media members of The Summit League

In addition to being included on all of these preseason lists, Benson was also the subject of a few national media stories this summer. Rivals.com featured him on the front of its website to go along with an excellent story by Steve Megargee (link). Jeff Goodman of FoxSports.com also ran a feature story on the redshirt center, a rarity for an outlet with a power-six focus (link). And just the other week, Benson was at the center of an article on Yahoo! Sports' NCAA basketball blog, The Dagger (link). Clearly, this type of exposure takes the Oakland program into uncharted territory. And with the added publicity will come additional pressure to perform. After all, no one will be surprised by Benson this season. He'll have to earn every basket and every rebound with teams and high-profile players gunning for him. We know a lot about Benson already, but we'll learn a lot more in 2010-11. After all the coverage, we will find out just how well he can respond when under the national microscope.

Expectations: Leadership

There is no question that Oakland basketball had its leaders in 2009-10. The two seniors, Derick Nelson and Johnathon Jones, played and led like their class standing suggests they should have. These players were single-handedly responsible for two of Oakland's biggest wins. Jones hit a game-winning shot against Oral Roberts at Oakland's Homecoming game in the O'Rena. Nelson powered the Golden Grizzlies through the Summit League tournament championship game with a legendary performance that saw him score 36 points and pull down 9 rebounds. They were focused, and they came up with big plays when Oakland needed them most. They were clutch, and they were leaders.

Who will step up in those big moments this year? The obvious indicator points to Keith Benson. He is a game-changer, simply put. One of the greatest moments of that Summit League championship game was when Benson blocked an approaching IUPUI opponent which led to a late fastbreak basket for Nelson (along with the and-1). While the game was nearly sealed at that point, Benson still played with that defensive toughness to the very end. Likewise, in the 2009 Summit League championship game, it was Benson who came up with a monster dunk that tied the game just before Ben Woodside hit the fateful shot that spawned Bison Fever. Benson can change the game on both ends of the court, and he's proven he can do it in the clutch. This year, Oakland will need that late-game intensity from him even more.

Larry Wright seems like a candidate to step-up as well in his senior season. Wright struggled with his perimeter shooting at various points of last season, but if he can find the touch this year, he could come up big for Oakland when the team is in need of a flurry of superhoops to shift the momentum when down to an opponent. Both Wright and Benson, however, are the kind of guys who let their game do the talking. Oakland will also need a few guys to step up who will have no trouble injecting a little fire or spirit into the team. That's where Will Hudson and Reggie Hamilton will come in.

Hudson, a senior, and Hamilton, a redshirt junior, were named co-captains for the 2010-11 season. It's easy to see why. Hudson has the chance to be the ultimate glue guy for Oakland this season. He's more vocal than any of his fellow seniors (at least in this observer's mind) and has been a solid player for the Grizzlies in all of the years he has been here. He'll need to continue to prove he's willing to do the little things that might not show up in the stat sheet or get him the accolades but that will ultimately help his team win ballgames. That's the bottom line, and we think if Oakland gets another ring in March, it'll be in part because of the leadership of a guy like Will.

Hamilton strikes us as a player with tons of personality who can keep things light and entertaining among the team (for proof, just watch him leading the OU Roll Call from this summer). However, he also seems like a fierce competitor eager to prove he has what it takes to pick up where Jonathon Jones left off. This is a veritable mix of traits for a guy who figures to be a prominent piece in the Golden Grizzlies' quest for a second-straight Summit League title. With Reggie around to lift up his teammates and give the team a bit of an edge, we think that task will prove much easier.

While we still have yet to see Reggie play as a Golden Grizzly, all indications are that he is ready to step in and lead right away. Hudson is a known commodity with all the intangibles that one looks for in pinpointing a consummate glue guy and productive post player. If Wright can step up his confidence this year, he'll surely come through in the clutch. And Benson is a monster who will no doubt be ready to help lead the Grizzlies to another title. Despite the losses of prominent players like Nelson and Jones, we suspect that everything is alright in the leadership department.

SUU's Departure And The Future Of The Summit League's Automatic Bid

It was officially announced on Monday that Southern Utah University would be leaving The Summit League to join the Big Sky Conference, effective at the conclusion of the 2011-12 academic year. While a future (South Dakota) and prospective (North Dakota) Summit League school are also involved here, their departure does not directly impact The Summit League in any way other than filling out the membership. Southern Utah's departure, then, is of primary concern. And with the exit of the Thunderbirds comes a lot of questions surrounding the future of the conference, particularly when it comes to basketball and the NCAA Tournament. In an attempt to make some sense of what is going on, I have carefully crafted the following post in a question and answer format which aims to address some of the uncertainty and confusion.

Disclaimer: Please note that all assumptions and analysis below have been developed using information from an official NCAA document about Division I sports championships, found here. If anyone has reason to believe that this is not the correct document to use for this situation, please let me know.

What is "Automatic Qualification" and how does it impact Summit League basketball?

Automatic Qualification is the process by which conferences determine a conference champion. That champion is then awarded a spot in the NCAA championships, whatever sport that may be. For Summit League basketball, "Automatic Qualification" is earned in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, at the Summit League tournament each March. The winner of this tournament becomes an automatic qualifier for the NCAA men's basketball tournament. Generally, this is referred to as an automatic bid, or auto-bid.

All of the Division I men's basketball conferences receive an auto-bid. However, the NCAA Selection Committee is also tasked with filling in the rest of the spots on the bracket with at-large teams, those who qualify not automatically, but rather through the strength of their regular season. It is very rare for schools in conferences outside of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC to receive such an at-large bid. In fact, The Summit League conference hasn't received an at-large since 1991, when the conference makeup was much different than it is today.

Consequently, The Summit League is, by most standards, a one-bid league. That one bid comes via Automatic Qualification, or the auto-bid. Without an auto-bid, history shows us that it is likely The Summit League would no longer have representation in the NCAA men's basketball tournament. But would it ever come to that?

Breaking down NCAA Bylaw 31.3.4.5

This bylaw governs "Atomatic Qualification" for NCAA Division I men's basketball. It can be downloaded here.

Which set of requirements apply?

The bylaw states:

Men’s Basketball. After September 1, 2003, a member conference as of September 1, 1999, may continue to apply the automatic qualification requirements in effect September 1, 1999, until any change (e.g., adding or losing any member) in its men’s basketball membership occurs. Thereafter, the automatic qualification regulations in effect September 1, 2003, shall be applicable.

The way I read that, in lay terms, is that there are two sets of regulations, those passed in 1999 and those passed in 2003. Essentially, I believe this exception was made as a sort of "grandfather" clause which allows conferences - who may not have been up to the 2003 standards - continue forth under the old standards until a change was made. In The Summit League, many membership changes have been made since 2003 and changes are coming once again, therefore it is rather clear to me that the 2003 requirements are those which apply to the current situation.

Will The Summit League meet the "core" members requirement?

The bylaw states:

The member conference must include seven core institutions. For the purposes of this legislation, core refers to an institution that has been an active member of Division I the eight preceding years.

This one seems fairly straightforward. It also presents the biggest hurdle for The Summit League. With the departure of Centenary after this season (2010-11), the league would be down to seven "core" members. With the departure of Southern Utah in 2012, the league would now be down to six "core" members, or beneath the limit. To see why, let's look the the table.

Core Members	Non-Core Members
IPFW IUPUI UMKC Oakland Oral Roberts Western Illinois	North Dakota State** South Dakota State**

To help explain this distribution, we need to look at when certain schools became active members of Division I. To begin, IPFW just barely makes the cut as a "core" member. The school became an active member of Division I prior to the 2002-2003 season. Therefore, the 2010-11 season will be its ninth as an active member of DI. Thus, the school meets the "core" member definition since it has been an active member for the "eight preceding years" beginning this year. It is general knowledge that the other five schools have all been active members for at least eight years.

The Summit League's non-core members include North Dakota State and South Dakota State. According to a news release from The Summit League's website, North Dakota State was approved as an active Division I member in June 2008, or in keeping with the units above, the 2008-09 season. Likewise, South Dakota State also became an active member of Division I in 2008-09. Using this year as a baseline, the NDSU and SDSU tandem will be entering its third year as active members of Division I, or they have been members for the "two preceding years." This measure is six short of the NCAA requirement of "eight preceding years" needed to be termed a "core" member.

Therefore, with the departure of Southern Utah imminent at the conclusion of 2011-12, The Summit League will then not meet the core membership number needed to meet the requirement for "Automatic Qualification" in the NCAA men's basketball tournament.

Will The Summit League meet the "continuity-of-membership" requirement?

The bylaw states:

Further, the continuity-of-membership requirement shall be met only if a minimum of six core institutions have conducted conference competition together in Division I the preceding five years in men’s basketball. There shall be no exception to the five-year waiting period.

Southern Utah is set to leave the conference after the 2011-12 season. So we need to determine if the continuity-of-membership will hold up sans SUU for the beginning of that time period. Five of the six remaining "core" members are fine. We need to look more closely at IPFW. The school joined The Summit League for the 2007-08 season. This season, 2010-11, will be its fourth with the conference. Therefore, following the 2011-12 season, IPFW will have completed its fifth year as a conference member. This is great news as now all six of the conference's "core" members will have been competing together for the preceding five years in men's basketball following Southern Utah's departure in 2012. No worries here.

Recap:

When Southern Utah leaves after the 2011-12 season for the Big Sky Conference, The Summit League will drop below the required seven "core" member institutions necessary to retain its Automatic Qualification status for the NCAA Tournament.

The Catch:

The NCAA does give conferences a grace period when the loss of a member results in a failure to meet the AQ requirements. The bylaw states:

A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below seven institutions, or below six members with continuity of membership, provided the conference maintains at least six Division I members.

Southern Utah will officially depart following the 2011-12 academic year, meaning that the two-year grace period - if I am interpreting this bylaw correctly - will begin sometime in the spring/summer of 2012. This grace period would extend until 2014 so long as the conference maintains at least six Division I members. Essentially, this means that from this day forward The Summit League would need to find a seventh "core" member for men's basketball to begin play in the 2014-2015 season. If it fails in this endeavor, the conference would lose its ability to have Automatic Qualification for the NCAA Tournament.

North Dakota State and South Dakota State will not reach "core" eligibility until the 2016-2017 season, in which case they would have been active members of Division I for the "eight preceding years." Consequently, short of a change in the NCAA bylaws, The Summit League would not be able to count on these two schools to get the conference over the "core" hump until several years in the future.

Is there reason to be worried?

The Summit League has dealt with high rates of membership turnover throughout its existence, so this is surely not a new hurdle for its administrators. As Kyle Whelliston of the Mid Majority/Basketball Prospectus notes,

"The Summit League will be fine without Southern Utah. It is resilient, and it is used to airport goodbyes. Since its birth as the Association of Mid-Continent Universities in 1982, it has had 27 different members. The Summit League will somehow find a way."

Even so, there is definitely a snag with this "core" membership requirement. Membership changes in the past half-decade or so haven't resulting in such snagging because the core of the "core" was stable. The Summit League could find new members from the ranks of provisional Division I programs like IPFW, SDSU, and NDSU in 2007 because the seven-member combination of Centenary, IUPUI, UMKC, Oakland, ORU, SUU, and WIU were all "core" members, and the group of six (excepting Centenary which joined the Summit League in 2003) met the "continuity-of-membership" requirement . This time, however, The Summit League will not have such a luxury. Thus, the conference must look to add an institution which has been an active member of Division I for the last eight years (or will be by the 2014-15 season), and that new member must be able to begin competing for men's basketball in the conference to start the 2014-15 season or sooner. If these two factors are taken care of, there is no reason to be worried. The Summit League would retain its auto-bid.

Please note everything up to this point is based on information available from the NCAA bylaws and my interpretation of these requirements. If a reader sees fault with anything above, please contact me and let me know. This is a very complicated situation, and I'm just doing my best as a regular dude to make sense of it all with as little complication as possible.

Everything to the south of this italicized comment is now pure speculation.

What factors could throw a wrench in the preceding analysis?

For all of the above situations, it was assumed that the "core" membership of The Summit League - IPFW, IUPUI, UMKC, Oakland, ORU, and WIU - would stay static through the end of the grace period in 2014. If this happens, then everything will be great.

However, if conference realignment continues to rear its ugly, football-shaped head and one or more of these schools is presented with a membership opportunity elsewhere, then The Summit League's position as an Automatic Qualifier for the NCAA men's basketball tournament would clearly be in jeopardy. However, this is not all doom and gloom. The six "core" schools appear rather committed to the conference at present, as do in-the-distant-future "core" members NDSU/SDSU.

What does this mean for Oakland?

It is the Oakland basketball program's best interest to not only be a part of a conference, but to be a part of a conference with an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. A conference offers stability and scheduling, and the auto-bid is the opportunity to play in the premier event of college athletics. Oakland has reaped the benefits of both in the past.

Some have postulated over these past few days that the remaining Summit League institutions should enter into an agreement that would impose huge exit fees if a school were to bolt for greener (read: more stable) conference pastures. If you have followed conference realignment this summer, you will no doubt remember this being a factor in some of the bigger conferences.

Such an agreement would be awfully tempting as it would more or less hinder schools from leaving if the fee was too costly to do so. I would be torn on whether or not to agree with such a move (purely as a fan). On the one hand, it would ensure that The Summit League wouldn't be torn to pieces in the near future. On the other, what happens if an opportunity presented itself to join with a more attractive league? I am a fan of The Summit League and its schools and would hate to see any one school's actions result in the downfall of the conference, but as an Oakland fan first and foremost, it'd also be disheartening if OU were left on the outside looking in because it was unable to make the right move in a time of ever-changing conference landscapes. Conference realignment is not done, and it could in fact get crazier in the coming years as the major conference players push the limits of membership. For now Oakland basketball, as the prime sport of Oakland University, needs to continue to do everything it can to make itself as valuable an asset as possible. This would help guarantee that the school wouldn't get lost in the shuffle of future realignment.

What is clear to me at this point, in a time of uncertainty, is that The Summit League needs to find that seventh "core" member. There is a real opportunity to strengthen the league with such an addition, and if officials can approach a school or two in the general region ("general" used liberally) of this conference, then travel will improve markedly. The search should not be conducted hastily, but it should be done with a focus on preserving the progress the conference has made in recent years in men's basketball. Wait too long and the concerns won't be purely from fans, but also recruits who wonder if the school they choose will have a shot at making the NCAA Tournament. That's a tangible concern, no doubt, and one that makes me hope there is a school or two out there that has been in Division I for at least eight years which might be willing to help restore the stability the remaining Summit League schools thought they had found in recent years.

Update 1 (11/2 1:20AM): I was "tweeted" with some solid information after posting this an hour ago. According to Forum (Fargo, N.D.) reporter Jeff Kolpack, there is currently legislation upcoming in the NCAA which would alter the AQ bylaws. He states that it would "get rid of the six schools together for five years rule" and "the new rule will simply require seven active members." Using the terminology laid out in this post, the first part means the continuity-of-membership criteria would be abandoned. The second part is a bit unclear to me, though taken literally, it means that a conference would simply need seven active members (The Summit League will have eight when SUU leaves). However, because the "core" requirement is such a fundamental part of this equation, we would need to ensure that the seven active member requirement would then be absent of the "eight preceding years" language. If that is the case, then The Summit League would be okay at its level of membership following SUU's exit. The next question, however, is when will this legislation be officially acknowledged by the NCAA and implemented? We shall see.

Oakland's Playmaker Quandary

During his team's media day, Oakland Coach Greg Kampe was asked who he saw as the squad's lock-down defender heading into the 2010-11 season. Kampe, always honest, noted that he wasn't quite sure who would emerge to fill that roll this season, saying it was the biggest question mark in his mind about this team. During last year's run to the NCAA Tournament, that roll was filled by two expert seniors in Derick Nelson at the forward position and Johnathon Jones as the primary defender of opposing point guards. Though it will be interesting to see who can step up to lock down the stars on the other side of the ball, I also feel like there is another lingering question with this year's team: who will fill the playmaker void left by Nelson and Jones? In an attempt to justify the question and perhaps answer it, I put together an analysis based on data available from last year.

My interest in playmaking ability was sparked by a post on the Sacramento Kings' blog Sactown Royalty, where the author used some unconventional data to figure out which Sacramento players needed the most help in getting off shots. Essentially, the site came up with a measure for shot creation based on the amount of times a player's "field goal made" was the result of an assist. Additionally, they broke this up into shots taken as jumpers and those in the paint. Fortunately for those writing about the NBA, this information is out there. In the realm of small-time college basketball, accessing such numbers is rather difficult. So in an attempt to duplicate this process, I went through all of the game logs from 2009-10, which clearly indicate how every point was scored during a game, to come up with the necessary numbers (the two games against non-Division I opponents were not included). Field goals are split up into those hit as "jumpers" and those completed as layups, dunks, tip-ins, or "jumpers in the paint." Additionally, each field goal notes if there was an assist tied to it. After the painstaking process of charting these factors, I came up with the following distribution.

To aid in understanding these numbers, let's look at a few specific examples. Perhaps the easiest role to understand is that of the center, Keith Benson. Benson is most often stationed in the post while the guards and forwards work the ball around hoping to get it to the big man to complete a play. As a result of this offensive set, a substantial amount of Benson's inside field goals, 56%, come as the result of a pass that directly sets him up to score, or an assist. The rest of the field goals he made in the paint were due to his own creation, whether through "posting up" an individual and working his way toward a bucket or through grabbing an offensive rebound and subsequently scoring. Now a key question here is whether putting the ball in the basket off of an offensive rebound can truly count as playmaking ability. This is truly debatable, and perhaps an indication that this measure is not perfect. I would argue, however, that the act of fighting for positioning and landing an offensive board as a result would count as creating the circumstances from which a field goal could be made. This methodology helps out Will Hudson quite a bit, who is known for put-backs via offensive rebounding. Because more plays are designed for Benson, Hudson then gets most of his scoring by creating for himself from such offensive rebounds. This is surely a reason why his inside assisted basket percentage is 13% lower than Benson's.

Hopefully the idea behind these numbers is a bit more clear now. Using this framework, let's dig into the potential problem heading into 2010-11. Specifically, we must look at the numbers of the two players who have since graduated, Nelson and Jones. Among all of the high-volume players, Nelson and Jones have the lowest total assisted basket percentage. While their numbers for jumpers are fairly standard across the team, their numbers in the paint are alarming. On the season, just 12% of Jones' plays in the paint came as a result of an assist, meaning he single-handedly created 88% of the field goals he made in the paint. As a guard, this means Jones had playmaking ability. When the ball was in his hands, Jones could either distribute (as he often did with perfection) or he could make a play toward the basket. While the volume of his inside field goals isn't as large as some of the other players, the percentage surely shows us that Jones could create his own shot if necessary (something we witnessed plenty of times, most notably on the road against Oregon in 2008 and at home against Oral Roberts in 2010). He mostly did it by cutting to the basket from the perimeter, but a large portion also came as the result of his ability to make defensive plays that led to quick transition lay-ups or his signature stop-and-shoot buckets from 15-feet out.

The worry grows even more when looking at Derick Nelson's figures. One of the reasons Oakland wasn't able to get over the hump in 2008-09 was because the team lacked a tough slasher with playmaking ability (due to Nelson's season-ending injury). Well in 2009-10, the Grizzlies were a force because Nelson was back again. In total, Nelson created just shy of 70% of his inside buckets. While several of those no doubt resulted from his aggressive offensive rebounding ability, most of them came from his effort to beat his opponent while gunning for the inside basket. Without Nelson, Oakland loses its primary playmaker of the past season.

The season has yet to start, meaning that these concerns are merely question marks and not legitimate problems at this point. There will be several players who can step up to provide playmaking for the Golden Grizzlies this year, especially without Jones and Nelson taking most of the minutes at those positions. To figure out where such production might come from, let's look at the various positions more closely, this time including the raw figures. We'll start with the guards.

What strikes me first about these numbers is the relative similarities between Jones and Larry Wright. Their numbers for outside jumpers are nearly identical. Jones has slightly less field goals as a result of an assist, most likely due to the fact the ball was already in his hands for most plays. I don't have the raw data to differentiate between three-pointers and two-point baskets, but from going through the logs, I can say that a large portion of Wright's 45 assisted jumpers were in fact from downtown. This figure will likely drop a bit in 2010-11 since he'll be the primary ball-handler and a lot of those shots will instead be reserved for Reggie Hamilton. But where Wright could improve is in his ability to make plays in the paint. JJ obviously had a huge advantage in this regard, making over two times as many inside baskets, mostly due to his own doing. Wright has the skills to replicate this process, but it will take an aggressive attitude and more confidence in order for him to finish such shots.

Ledrick Eackles didn't play as many minutes as the other guards, so his raw figures are considerably leaner. However, his percentages show that he likes to and can create on his own. His 31% assist percentage is the lowest on the team, no doubt influenced by his tendency to take risky three-pointers as well as his ability to beat out opponents in the open court on the way to an easy transition lay-up. Eackles' playmaking skills give me the impression that he will be able to make up for some of the production of Johnathon Jones. Reggie Hamilton obviously throws a wrench in this analysis since his impact is unknown at this point. For what it's worth, I'm hopeful that Hamilton can be a playmaker, distributor, and defensive stopper all in one!

The forwards on this team have a lot more work to do in order to replace the offensive production of Nelson. This is what worries me most. We've already talked about how Nelson was a playmaking monster, most of which came from high-percentage shots in the paint. None of the potential replacements have ever come close to the kind of numbers Nelson put up last season. In fact, most of these guys rely heavily on others in order to get an open look. The most reliant of the bunch is Drew Maynard. A whopping 72% of his field goals came as the result of an assist. In the paint, a large portion of his 26 assist field goals were from tremendous alley-oop passes which he forcefully threw down. There is clearly a purpose for such field goals, but without JJ tossing the ball up, there is some reason to be concerned. Additionally, most of Maynard's jumpers were three-pointers which came directly from an assist. There is little evidence to suggest that Maynard had the ability to create his own shot from outside or inside. It is possible that he just wasn't afforded the opportunity to do so with Nelson getting so many minutes ahead of him, but with his suspension, it remains to be seen if we'll find out any differently this year.

For his part, Blake Cushingberry's raw numbers prove he has been the biggest benefactor of a great passing game. Just three of his 31 jumpers were as a result of his own playmaking; this probably stems from the fact that most of his jumpers were from beyond the three-point line where he was able to set up and wait for the pass. His inside numbers offer a glimmer of hope for the forward position. For most of the season, his inside figures were skewed toward field goals made from an assist, though his inspiring performance in the conference tournament showed he could get into the lane to make a play on his own (or from an offensive board). There isn't enough volume to be able to say for sure that he could become a Nelson-like player, but percentage-wise one can hope that Cushingberry could approach that level.

For Drew Valentine, we simply lack enough data to be able to draw any firm conclusions. His inside figures are nice but mostly came against the 10th and 11th guys on the bench of the opponent. His role will expand greatly this season, and I can only hope that he's able to showcase some shot creation ability, particularly in the paint.

There is nothing too revelatory with the figures for Oakland's bigs, as everyone comes back this season. In terms of raw data, Benson clearly benefited as the focal point of the offense with 90 field goals assisted. However, his size and athletic skill also allowed him to make 70 field goals in the paint from his own doing (once again, whether from offensive boards or "posting up"). His percentage stays rather consistent when he goes outside of the paint as well, where he is more effective draining jumpers when a solid pass is made his way. Hudson, on the other hand, almost exclusively gets his baskets in the post. He proves effective both when a play is made his way and when he must make one on his own (as he does with his offensive boarding). Finally, Ilija is a bit of a non-factor in this discussion. Hopefully he has more than seven field goals to his name this time next year.

Even though Nelson and Jones are gone, there are certainly opportunities for current players to step up and make plays for Oakland this season. College basketball, after all, is all about new players getting the chance to come in and pick up where those with no more eligibility left off. A consistently good program knows and embraces this. Now it will be up to players like Wright, Eackles, Hamilton, Cushingberry, and Valentine to come in and show that Oakland is one of those good programs.

*A quick note about the numbers. Since they were tabulated by eye-and-hand, there was a small error of about 3 field goals that I believe were missed after comparing my totals with the official end-of-season total on the statistics page of OUGrizzlies.com. This error is likely insignificant but should be noted.

**A second note: These numbers can also be utilized to talk a bit about Oakland's passing game and not simply an individual's ability to get a shot on his own. For example, 61% of the team's made jumpers (including from beyond the three-point line) came as the result of an assist. Such a figure would indicate that the team's ball movement was fairly strong or that certain offensive sets designed to hit the open man on the perimeter were indeed effective. A more cynical approach might also use these statistics to indicate whether or not a player was a "ball-hog." However, such an argument doesn't really hold up well. For example, Johnathon Jones was a national leader in assists, yet when push came to shove, he knew how to make a play for himself as well. Obviously, the statistics don't lie, but the resulting analysis largely depends on the eye of the beholder.