mackie

I'm a boro guy and have seen upclose what Thomas has done at Shelbyville. I like him a whole lot and wish him the best of luck. Any possibility that he is setting up to follow Andrews to the college ranks?

Murfreesboro Post confirming the rumors that Coach King will be the next coach at Providence Christian Academy in the Boro. From the Post's website: Coach Randy King joins Providence Christian By: TMP report Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:50 am Randy King, following his resignation from Oakland High, will be coming to Providence Christian Academy next fall and the athletic director and coach. "As you are well aware of his coaching ability and his success at Oakland, he is even a better person who lives by Godly principles," said Providence head master Butch Vaughn. "At PCA, he is the type of character person that we want working and teaching the students," Vaughn said. King served 33 years as a coach at Oakland and 23 years as head coach. His overall record was 552-173 for a winning percentage of 76.1. His teams won seven region titles, made five Boys State appearances and had 20 straight 20-plus win seasons.

I think TraderB has a pretty good assessment of the kid's demeanor and I agree with it. I am a Middle TN guy so I have no ties whatsoever to Jackson or White Station. One of the many things that impressed me about Jackson was his everpresent even keel. With the exception of the technical after dunking over a guy (a play which deserved a little bit of fanfare, but without the taunting aspect), Jackson kept his mouth shut the entire tourny and displayed no negative body language that I witnessed. To be that talented and hyped up, I thought he handled himself better then any of the other "big" names in the tourny. One thing about his effort. I was sitting with a buddy who was also observing and questioning whether Jackson was playing hard. My response to him was that a kid with his abilities and skill sets seems to not be playing as hard as some other guys, but in reality the game is so effortless and smooth that it comes across as not playing hard. Any thoughts from you guys that have watched him for 3 years?

Any idea how many games each of them had 15+ in? For Oakland, 100% sure Adams and Hockenberry have done it at least once. Would be willing to bet Blissard and Messick have too, but not certain. Another factor in which I think Shelbyville will have an advantage is on the boards.

Trey, how many 15+ point games have Shelbyville players not named Andrews had this season? Same question for OP or tj, how many 15+ point games have Oakland players not named Hughes or Edwards had this season? Not trying to start anything, just curious about the scoring effects of the rest of the puzzle pieces for each team.

Hughes does a good job of producing within the team's framework, no doubt about it. My concern is if Shelbyville's defense is able to limit Hughes. If that happens, then at least one or two other Patriots will need to pick up the slack. Shelbyville is maybe the only team that Oakland has faced that has the combined athletic ability as well as the defensive discipline to limit Hughes (and the same argument can be made about Oakland's ability to limit Andrews). I don't understand your second question. I was trying to convey the idea that by selectively pushing the tempo, Shelbyville may create a slight advantage (especially in comparison to their Siegel matchup, where they were better served to control the tempo at a slower pace). Maybe firepower wasn't the best word. The "firepower" I was referring to is their ability to get points in bunches that I think Oakland might have trouble matching. As long as Oakland takes care of the ball and shoots decent from the perimeter, they will be fine. However, if they have empty possessions with TOs or failed perimeter attempts, then I see a potential setting similar to the District championship where Oakland had a 2 minute stretch in the 4th in which they failed to answer Siegel's inside baskets. I think Andrews and Hughes will get their respective points (maybe not 30+, but they will be leading scorers). Unlike Siegel and Columbia, I think S'ville is too well coached to give up many open looks to Adams or Hockenberry. Ultimately I think Wilson, Jarrell, and Twilley will have better scoring opportunities then Hockenberry, Adams, or Blissard. This is where Edwards could be an x-factor. If he plays and is not too hobbled, he could be the difference in the game. All this is just my opinion, not trying to downgrade either squad, just trying to add my 2-cents worth of analysis. And it's probably not even worth 2-cents as I've only seen Oakland play once (district title game) and haven't even seen Shelbyville at all.

I'm not sold on WV either. Enjoy your championship game, both squads deserve it.

An argument could be made that Oakland would be better served to utilize Edwards in the region championship as opposed to the Sectional game (if it came down to having to choose one or the other). I haven't seen Walker Valley or Red Bank play, but perception, records, and polls indicate that Walker Valley is much better then Red Bank. So one might argue that an Oakland-Red Bank matchup at Oakland without Edwards would be better then an Oakland-Walker Valley matchup in Chattanooga with Edwards. Don't know for sure, just playing devil's advocate.

I agree that Hammonds size will definately project better in college. Question for Trey, will Andrews height limit his collegiate options? If he is going to play the 2 at the next level, I would think that he would need to grow at least a couple more inches. I haven't seen him play since he was a freshmen, but I know he elevates well on his jump shot and I assume he has a pretty quick release, but 5'-11" is a little undersized. Any potential for him to play the point in college?

I suspect you are correct about the youth element. I assure you that I don't judge Shelbyville by the certain few. Should be a good game Thursday. I think Shelbyville will be better suited to push the ball on occasion. Oakland's defense will keep it close; however, I believe Shelbyville's firepower will be too much. If Hockenberry and Adams are connecting outside then Oakland could pull it off, but if they are relying solely on Hughes to carry them then it may be a long night.

For what it's worth, I would like to say that SiegelGrad has earned some respect from me. Not only did he show up on the boards after a tough loss, in his initial post after the game he was complementary of the opponent and gave respect where it was due. I have always liked Shelbyville's players as well as Coach Thomas (especially after how he handled the Gross issue), but some of the Shelbyville posters are beginning to look and sound alot like some Siegel posters. Glad to see that Andrews is a little more humble in victory then some of his supporters as he had this quote in the Tennessean: ???Every time he got open, he knocked it down,??? Andrews said. ???That??™s what you??™re supposed to do when you??™re up for Mr. Basketball like he is. You??™ve got to knock down the big shots.??? As far as comparing Hammonds and Andrews, both had big games. Neither disappeared when their team was in the spotlight. Sometimes shots just don't fall. And by the way, player talent is measured in more ways than points scored. It's a pointless excercise to try and discredit a Mr. Basketball nomination because there are a handful of players who average more points. Should Andrews be a finalist? Maybe, but not simply because he averages more points then Hammonds. I didn't attend last night, but the glaring stat to me is Siegel's 2 points in the 2nd quarter. How does a team with that much talent only score 2 points in a quarter? On the radio it sounded like the reason was due to empty possessions resulting from turnovers and poor shot selection. Anybody that was there care to elaborate?

I am not using the CoachT fan poll, which I agree is an unacceptable tool for supporting an argument. I am using the "Schedule Strength" and "Strength + Success" rankings which, according to CoachT are defined as follows: "The Schedule Strength column ranks teams based on the average win percentage of their scheduled opponents." "The Strength + Success column combines the opponent win percentage with the team's own win percentage. Teams that perform better against opponents that perform better will rank higher." Both of these ranking systems are purely statistical, which eliminates biases (personal, regional, and any other). While it's not exactly as complex as the BCS, it does carry some validity. Having said that, we can still use your ranking reference if you prefer. This week's Tennessean Mid-State poll has Ensworth ranked #4. That's above Columbia, Shelbyville, and Oakland. We're not debating whether or not Ensworth could compete for a AAA State title. We are debating the strength of Columbia's opponents. Your claim was that Ensworth was "terrible". My claim is that Ensworth, while maybe not able to compete for a AAA state title (eventhough your own ranking reference has them higher then Columbia, Shelbyville, and Oakland), is far from "terrible". Additionally, Andre Whitehead with TN_Prep_Hoops has Ensworth as one of the top 20 teams in the state regardless of classification - again, far from "terrible". FYI - Last week's Tennessean had Father Ryan ranked 10th in the Mid-State poll - not exactly "terrible". End of argument and good luck to District 7 tomorrow night.

I agree Columbia is probably not the #3 team in the state. However, a team must be somewhat formidable to receive a #3 ranking in a purely statistical means of a ranking system. That is the point I'm trying to make with Ensworth. Would they be Region 4-AAA champs, probably not. But how many "terrible" teams have you seen win a state championship at any level. How many "terrible" teams win 26 games (regardless of their competition). Ensworth and Father Ryan might not be Bearden / Liberty Tech / or Science Hill, but they definately aren't Warren Co / Lincoln Co / or Smyrna. They are closer to the first group then the later, and if you don't agree then you do need to just stop arguing.

To say that Oakland has "no chance" without Edwards is a bit ridiculous. On the other hand, for OP to say that he feels just as good going into tomorrow's game without Edwards as he would with him is a bit unrealistic as well. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. Losing any starter at this point in the season is cause for concern. However, I fully expect Oakland to give Columbia all they can handle and maybe even pull out a win. I haven't seen Columbia play, so I won't make a prediction other than it will still be a battle even without Edwards (and maybe that is the point OP was trying to make). I think Siegel will need to play smarter then they did against Oakland in the D-champ (especially shot selection). I think Shelbville can be just as productive (if not more) in transition offense then Oakland was. I think Shelbyville also has a better ability to draw fouls then Oakland does. And finally, the Eagles have more numerous scoring options in which they can match baskets with Siegel if need be. Oakland executed a pretty solid gameplan, they just couldn't get a basket to stop the bleeding when Tate and Hammonds went to work inside during that 2 minute span in the 4th. Again, I haven't seen Shelbyville so I won't make a prediction other then this too will be a battle to the end. CoachT strength of schedule ranks: Columbia: 23 Shelbyville: 39 Oakland: 75 Siegel: 83 I don't necessarily agree that Siegel has the weakest schedule of the four, but we can at least say that by CoachT's particular measure of schedule strength, Columbia and Shelbyville have played schedules that are at least comparable to (and arguably tougher than) Siegel and Oakland. I agree that BA is down, but Ensworth is solid. They just won the D-II State tourny. Would they crack the top 4 in this region, maybe not but they would definately give all 4 teams a run for sure. And that's far from "terrible" in my book.

Looks like there is some truth to what boro states as Columbia averages 62.3 points per game while only giving up 49. Siegel averages 73.6 ppg while giving up 57.1. Columbia averages about 85% as many points as Siegel and only allows 85% of the points Siegel gives up. Looks like that may support the argument for Siegel's greater number of possessions. Here some more interesting stats that I would hope discredit the statement that Columbia has no defense. In 25 of thier 27 games (93%), Columbia has held their opponent under their respective scoring average. The two games in which they didn't, they allowed Tullahoma to score 1 above their average and Lincoln Co 4 above their average. For the season, they have held their opponents to 241 points (or 8.9 points per game) below their collective scoring averages. Just for comparison purposes, Siegel's numbers look like this: In 16 of their 29 games (55%), Siegel held their opponent under their respective scoring average. For the season, Siegel has held their opponents to 72.5 points (or 2.5 points per game) below their collective scoring averages. If you still claim that Columbia has no defense, then based on the above numbers you woud also have to claim that Siegel doesn't either.

Welcome to the fray Tron. I appreciate the thoughtful insight. I agree that Oakland's matchups create a tough call for King. As you stated, if Siegel is focused on defense, it should be near impossible for Oakland to get off uncontested perimeter shots (especially from Hockenberry, Nelson, and Adams). However, only one of the four first half 3's (Adams at end of 1st quarter) came in transition. Hockenberry had two more open looks in the second half, but couldn't connect. Neither of those looks were in transition. Siegel was able to overcome the open looks because as you said, they have too many bodies and too many offensive weapons compared to Oakland. But it is something that could haunt them if they do not get out and cover shooters as they progress in the post-season. The first half was a little more up and down then I expected and the tempo constantly teetered right on the verge of a track meet, but I don't think it ever quite got to that point. Oakland chose to run at times, but for the most part they ran continual motion type offensive sets. They started the game in a guard to guard perimeter hand-off motion (could be labeled as a "stall") in an effort to force the Stars to play defense for longer periods of time then they wanted to. Also in the first half, Oakland ran a variation of a flex set to again try to create lengthy offensive possessions. I don't think Oakland did anything different in the 3rd then what they had been doing in the first half. It was a one point game going into the last frame. About 2 minutes in, Siegel got 3 big baskets inside (Tate x2 and Hammonds) and Oakland didn't respond. That's where the Stars built a slight lead and Oakland wasn't able to recover. I will say this, Siegel won the game on the free throw line. Oakland did everything they could to make a push after Siegel's inside baskets, but Siegel maintained their pad by knocking down FTs down the stretch.

I will start by saying that Siegel's talent level 1-10 is really solid. I was unaware of their depth. I think if you take away the big 3, they still finish top 3 this year. It appears that Dotson does a good job of keeping everyone happy by letting them play and not dictating where the ball goes too much. There is some value in that. However, here are a few things that I saw last night that lead me to a different conclusion then hoops stated above. Let it be known that this is not an attempt to bash Siegel. I liked the attitude and effort from this Siegel bunch a lot better then prior groups. I only point these things out in an attempt to identify some areas in which Siegel can improve, and in my opnion must improve to be successful against teams with similar talent as theirs. 1) It took 3.5 quarters before Siegel capitalized on the Hockenberry/Nelson mismatches. Hockenberry/Nelson was guarding Gooch or Tate most of the night, but the Stars were too impatient to try and exploit it. They attempted to go inside one or two times early, but Oakland made it a little difficult and Siegel seemed to just abandon it. If they had continued going inside early and often, the game would have been over a lot sooner. 2) At the end of the half, Siegel holds the ball for one shot and it ends up being a Nicholas three from the top of the key without any passes or penetration. There didn't appear to be any play or set called. They are too talented to settle for a shot such as that. 3) Starting the third quarter, Siegel has first possession and again the shot that was taken was a turnaround, fading, contested jumper by Williams (it might of been Mitchell, not certain). Again, no patience whatsoever in attempting to exploit a matchup or at least get it in the hands of one of the top 3 in a favorable spot on the floor. 4) Siegel's "improved" half court defense gave up a number of uncontested 3's to Hockenberry, Nelson, and Adams. Oakland hit 4 of those open looks in the first half and it kept them in the game. Adams 3 at the end of first quarter (while Siegel was celebrating Gooch's dunk) was huge as it negated some of Siegel's momentum. Also, I thought Oakland should have tried to get Hockenberry a couple more looks early on as he was obviously feeling good about his shot. However, I could have done without all the looking in the crowd after his made 3's). 5) In addition to the 3's, at the end of the 3rd Hughes goes coast to coast with no one even coming close to stopping the ball. Oakland also got numerous open looks inside because of their patience on offense and Siegel's lack of defensive helpside and rotations. Siegel became antsy after about 10 seconds into a possession and Oakland capitalized early. As the game wore on though, Oakland struggled to keep that patience especially after Tate went to work inside and opened a little bit of a lead for the Stars. As far as talent goes, Oakland has some good players but in comparison to Siegel, they don't have anyone that would bump Hammonds, Gooch, Mitchell, or Tate out of the starting lineup. Hughes would most likely be able to move into the 5th starting spot. And due to Siegel's need for a true point guard, Hockenberry might be able to fill that roll as a starter. Siegel's talent, height, and athleticism across the board is much better then Oakland's and it allowed them to win last night. For these reasons, I think it's hard to make the claim that Oakland was outcoached. If you put Dotson on Oakland's bench and King on Siegel's bench, does a Dotson-lead Oakland team make it a dog fight like last night? Won't ever know, but it does help in trying to assess who was better coached last night.

Thinking about heading over to Siegel tonight. Boro, SG, or OP, what time do I need to get there to get a seat? Only need 4 seats, and I don't have a problem watching the game from any seat in the house, just want to be sure I have one. Thanks guys, and good luck to both squads.

Boro, we finally found some common ground. Drop the competitive juices for a minute fellas, there is no need to compare the two situations. Both are tremendous in thier own right. Both young men are great examples of being offered a second chance and not squandering it. Don't know either of them personally, but my hat's off to each of them. Additionally, there are similar stories all around this State (maybe not quite as severe as Brandon or Neal) in which kids that have tremendous physical, mental, or emotional hurdles defy the odds and participate in things they were told would never be possible. They might never experience the feeling of making a contribution or recieving recognition on the field, court, pool, etc. such as Neal and Brandon have. If you know of someone in this category, make it a point to commend and encourage them sometime this week. You never know when they might need those extra little words of support.

Not to mention Michael Couey, Clay Shirley, Ricky Swader, Tony Smith, Wardell Alsup (football, but boro is counting Montori in his numbers), Adareus Dixon, Matt Joines, Joe Barker, Jafarious Wade, Shane Harb.... More completely ridiculous claims by boro. Hoops, the claim by boroballer was that it was a shame that as good as Oakland has been over the years, he could count on one hand the number of Oakland players that have gone on to play in college. He didn't limit it to the past 5 years. I'm failing to see a "Dotson factor". Based on your statements, I would argue that all 5 of the Siegel guys (Oden, Ramsey, Roper, Jones, Cutter) that have received scholarships to play in college were (in your words), superstars that got noticed simply because they stood out. How much work do you think it took to get these guys some exposure? All 5 of them played a pretty heavy summer circuit while in HS. Those 5 guys would have received offers regardless of who their high school coach was. I don't think you can say the same thing for some of those Oakland guys that were mentioned above. Do you really think that no other program in the midstate has sent 9 guys to higher education in the past 5 years? There's no way of finding out for sure, but I would be willing to bet that it has been done. Why not just be proud of the fact that you guys have had 5 (6 if you count Montori) players that were talented enough to play at the next level? The average CoachT ranking for all District 8 teams is 55.7. The average CoachT ranking for District 8 teams minus Shelbyville & Columbia is 76. The average CoachT ranking for all District 7 teams is 60.5 The average CoachT ranking for District 7 teams minus Siegel & Oakland is 76.2. If District 8 is the worst in the state, then District 7 isn't far behind based on the above numbers. I would generally agree that District 7 is typically tougher top to bottom then District 8. That doesn't seem to be the case so much this season. Boro, I'm going to keep calling you to the carpet as long as you keep making these ridiculously unfounded generalized statements.

I'd say winning over 80% of your games would be considered by most as "Keeping you in the thick of things". While Oakland will employ some half-court trapping from time to time. I've always thought that the backbone of their defense is their on ball defense. They are consitently the best at the simple practice of just keeping your man in front of you. Too many kids try to lunge, shoot gaps, reach around, etc. and it gets them in poor position. As a general rule, Oakland plays a very conservative yet solid man defense. Of course they will always have an exception or two each year that is quick enough (Maupins) or long enough (Chaisson) to pressure the ball and still keep from getting beat.

Well said OP. I don't disagree with any of it. Just thought it was interesting to take a look at the numbers. Any thoughts on the stats I mentioned about your Patriot's winning % against district opponent's?

Is this how it ends Boro? Guess we will just gloss over the Father Ryan, Div. II Mr. Basketball, and Siegel's schedule "flaws" issues (Alcoa, Lincoln Co, & Overton). Here's the thing, you got me interested in looking at more than just this year's schedule. And you actually have a decent argument about Oakland's scheduling. However, when you make comments such as the Father Ryan one, the Div II Mr Basketball finalists, and omit Siegel's worst opponent when trying to compare strength of schedules, then it nullifies the argument that your trying to make and discredits what your trying to say. I went back and compared Oakland and Siegel's non-district regular season opponents since Siegel began playing 5 years ago. Based on results posted on the T (which we know aren't 100% correct, but good enough for my purposes), Siegel's opponents are a combined 1156-770 (60% winning %) and Oakland's opponents are 1039-896 (54% winning percentage). As much as I don't like saying it OP, there does appear to be some validity to boro's argument. I don't think this cheapens or downgrades Oakland's or King's success (because as I will show you below, they are THE district measuring stick), but it does add a little insight to the constant 20-win seasons. But I might add that there are many teams at all levels that don't win the games they are supposed to, so you still got to give some credit to the Patriots for getting the job done each year. There is no doubt that Siegel has achieved the most post-season success in the past 5 years of this district, but to say that they have dominated the district is not completely accurate. I compared Siegel and Oaklands records against district opponents (including post-season) over the past 5 seasons. It's pretty interesting: Siegel's total record: 67-32 (68% winning %) against Oakland: 9-7 (56%) against Blackman: 8-4 (67%) against Riverdale: 7-6 (54%) against Lebanon: 11-6 (65%) against White Co: 9-6 (60%) against Cookeville: 11-2 (85%) against Warren Co: 12-1 (92%) Oakland's total record: 83-21 (80% winning %) against Siegel: 7-9 (44%) against Blackman: 13-2 (87%) against Riverdale: 12-4 (75%) against Lebanon: 11-2 (85%) against White Co: 14-3 (82%) against Cookeville: 12-1 (92%) against Warren Co: 14-0 (100%) Siegel does have the better head to head record, and that's not disputable. But it's hard to overlook the fact that Oakland wins 86% of their games against the remaining district opponents. That is ridiculously consistent.

SG, 85 has no option but to recall those 98 and 99 seasons. Comments on this board (i.e. don't think anyone from this district has ever been nominated for Mr. Basketball, this "insert favorite school here" team is the most dominate team in the history of the district, etc.) constantly leave the door open for 85 and others to remind some of the younger bucks in here that this district's history is much deeper then the immediate past successes of oakland and siegel. All 3 programs have had great success. Can we all agree to classify the successes as follows: Oakland's success is the most consistent, White Co's success (so far) is the greatest (as it is the only team to bring home the gold ball, and that was twice), and Siegel's success is the most recent.

Such bitterness! A little perspective would be nice here. Try to drop the emotion and sensationalism and take a look at things in a little more objective manner. Father Ryan beat Blackman by 30, and Oakland by 9. Oakland only lost 2 district games. Not saying that Father Ryan would have finished ahead of Oakland, but in all reality Father Ryan would be a top 4 team (at the least) in 7-AAA this year. Not sure why the Messick reference, but the 3 Mr. basketball finalist this year in the Division II-AA classification are a Princeton signee, a North Carolina signee (arguably the best player in the State), and a small forward that averages 25+ for a team that many believe to be top 10 in the state regardless of classification. Again, a little perspective about the fact that players and teams outside of the big city ('boro) and/or in the private school division can indeed be great ball players. It was only 2 years ago (06-07) that Whites Creek lost in the State semifinals to Maryville. If you want to include overton as a cupcake, then Siegel played them as well therefore must be counted as a "flaw" on Siegel's schedule. Again, I'm not claiming the above teams to be elite or even better than average. But they are far from cupcakes. Similar sized schools, similar pool of talent to select from, talented enough to compete at a level that is respectable in the AAA classification. Those items can't be argued (at least not without providing some type of supporting logic as to why). No response to the Alcoa and Lincoln County "flaws" on Siegel's schedule? Eventhough you may think I am a Siegel "hater", let me show you how objectivity works. I agree with you about Hammonds and the DNJ. He should've been the focal point of any HS coverage the DNJ chose to publish today. With that being said, I don't hate Siegel and I am far from an Oakland fan. I'm just trying to introduce some level of logic to the arguments at hand.