Monday, February 7, 2011

Better Than The Super Bowl

Gannon turned a lackluster near-blowout in front of a quarter-filled Hammermill Center into a comeback thriller Monday night, rallying past Central State (Oh.), 64-63. It was another Jekyll-and-Hyde performance for the Knights, who stumbled their way to 22 points and 8 turnovers in the first half and then exploded for 42 points and produced just 5 turnovers in the second half.

WFNN's Jim LeCorchick interviewed me at halftime, and I know we were lamenting Gannon's first-half sleepwalk. Then we said this team has shown all season they could turn it on for a half, and I swear LeCorchick said Travis Brannen could go off (he had 16 points and 10 rebounds in the second stanza) and I agreed, noting that we wouldn't surprised if the Knights erupted for 42 points (they did). If anyone can confirm we said that, please let me know. I might want to collaborate with Jim on Wednesday's Powerball numbers.

I really liked the Knights' offensive aggressiveness in the second half. A long time Gannon fan asked me at halftime to enlighten him on the team's philosophy of throwing the ball side-to-side-to-side for the first 30 seconds of the shot clock while the players away from the ball basically stand still. I couldn't explain it, so I just threw a handful of caramel corn into my mouth. The Knights changed their attack in the second half -- they actually started attacking -- with Anthony Clagett and Danard Crouch frequently trying to dribble past their defenders. Let's hope the Knights approach Edinboro the same way Wednesday night.

And why was this game better than the Super Bowl, as I claim in the headline? Because we didn't see any of this at the game. Ugh.

9 comments:

  1. There is a lot of chatter about the attendance at Gannon games. Having been around GU for the better part of 50 years there are three parts needed to put people in the seats.
    1) You need an exciting product which we have not had for this year and last. ( Not slighting the girls but they ae not at the level of the men yet in fan interest)
    2) you need a coach who promotes his product out in public. Some say that is not the coaches job but if you remember Tom Chapman he use to walk through the cafeteria and ask the students to come and support the team. He went to the frat houses looking for support. Made the tour of the communion breakfast and sport banquets and made everyone feel like part of the program. Maybe 25 years ago this was not necessary but today it is.
    3) Gannon has to start putting more effort in promoting sports at the college.
    There is competion for the fans and the days of just opening the doors and they will come is over.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not even sure why we're playing tonight ... all the rest of the PSAC teams are resting up for the stretch drive ...

    Hope nobody gets hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 89, it's a make-up from a weather-cancelled game earlier this season. I understand a lot of the angst, but there IS a legitimate reason for tonight's game.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Boze:

    The womens game is a makeup game; the mens game was originally scheduled for tonight. So the only reason for this game is to fulfill the home and home agreement that we for whatever reason couldn't schedule when Gannon had off 20 straight days or whatever it was.

    As for attendance: guess we can all drop the afternoon vs. night argument. 578 tonight?! PATHETIC!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Had them all the way! Good observations Bob

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well the attendance for the Women's game easily reached about 150-200 max. Guys was awful...and yet at the end we had that damn place rocking and rolling. That is a team that showed some heart out there tonight...way for the guys to fight...and finally win a close game!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The last 2 minutes it sounded like 1,500 fans were there, instead of 500. Good win tonight, now let's beat the hell out of bummy boro!

    ReplyDelete
  8. cc3, good catch. Must be the snow clouding my ability to read a simple schedule.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Year Tot Att Avg. Conf.RankNtl' Rank
    2000-01^ 30,988 1,823 1 30
    2001-02^ 33,981 2,124 1 20
    2002-03^ 29,525 1,845 1 27
    2003-04^ 31,234 1,837 1 26
    2004-05^ 23,615 1,574 2 NR
    2005-06^ 20,122 1,184 3 NR
    2006-07^ 17,074 1,220 2 NR
    2007-08^ 26,773 1,575 1 22
    2008-09^^ 38,583 1,754 1 24
    2009-10^^ 17,594 1,035 2 NR

    ^GLIAC
    ^^PSAC

    ReplyDelete