Could Michigan's B-ball woes be blamed on the ball?
Chris at Smart Football posts "Smart Links" at his website from time to time and I gave this article a read. This particular article mentions why winning on the road in college basketball is so tough. Says the different basketballs used are to blame. It specifically mentions Wisconsin and how Bo Ryan uses a Sterling ball and is the only team to do so. In Ryan's tenure (The Sterling era) Wisconsin is 135-11 at home. Do you think Michigan using an Adidas ball (which only 10 other teams in the top 6 conferences do) has hindered the team at all? Seems like a stretch but there has to be some explanation to why the team performed under expectations this season (with primarily poor shooting to be the problem).
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/is-home-court-advantage-rea…
I think it's the lighting at Crisler.
Yes, adidas is soley responsible for Michigans basketball and football strugles.
We don't have a very good team.
Not going through the hoop from 3pt range.
I tend to think that home court advantage has more to do with lighting and other aesthetic features. I can tell you from recent personal experience, that such things have a big impact on depth perception and can seriously throw off your shot. After spending the majority of the semester playing at the IM building, I struggled drastically to shoot the ball when playing over at the CCRB over spring break.
We don't use an adidas ball at home, right? It's that "Beilein THE ROCK" ball.
It's not the ball, it's the shoes.
When I did poorly on my exams I would tell the professor my pencil was to blame, it always went over well.
they tried switching to Voit but the ball kept bubbling out after all the 3pt bricks.
no. this is the sort of stuff people who are unable to accept poor results or just being bad resort to.
... it seems like U-M actually shoots better on the road, when they are not using The Rock.
Unless the other teams are using trained sharks as basketballs, no. That is a ridiculous argument.
I couldn't stomach reading the whole thing, but I scanned it and saw exactly zero evidence outside of the writers assertion that balls were different. He didn't even get one disgruntled coach/player to give an anecdotal response in favor.
a true hunter never blames his bow.
The ball just hasn't been undulating our way this year. I say conspiracy.
when the NBA changed balls...The players hated it, and Stern won some brownie points with the players when he let them change it back. (Back in 2006 and then the return)
It does seem to me that everyone should use the NCAA sponsored ball...but in no way should the ball used explain how bad Michigan was this season...
Interesting side note: Beilein has invented a ball with a stripe down the middle (called the "Beilein ball," appropriately enough) that is supposed to help a player get better rotation. Presumably they are using this in practice, although it's tough to see any positive results.
I wonder...does anyone know if the Big House and Crisler were built on the burial grounds of some ancient tribe that had a vendetta with tribesmen from the area we now know as West Virginia and by bringing our coaches in from these regions, we have somehow angered the spirits, and our teams are now, indeed haunted and cursed?
Simply put our team is just not good, doesn't matter on the ball.
It really doesnt matter but I have played my whole life and I always loved our home ball better then when we played away. We used a very soft ball with wide lines. Great for shooting. I have used the adidas ball and I hate it to be honest. It's hard as hell. I even hate using it when I ref games. I will ask schools if they have a "better" ball. It's not the reason we are losing but thats my .02