Jump to content

Lamar Travels To Thibodaux Looking To Keep Streaks Alive

Guest abovetherim

By Guest abovetherim
in SETXsports Archived Threads

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest abovetherim

Guest abovetherim

Posted
Posted

Birds Have Won Four Overall and Two-Straight on the Road

Feb. 6, 2008

Complete Release in PDF Format

Riding a season-best four-game winning streak, Lamar travels to Nicholls State for a Southland battle at Stopher Gym. The Cardinals bring the four-game streak with them, but also have won two-straight road contests. The game is the only league contest on the schedule for Thursday.

Lamar-Nicholls State Series History

This will be the 22nd meeting between Lamar and Nicholls State with the Cardinals holding an 18-3 all-time series advantage. Lamar is 12-0 in games played in Beaumont, 5-3 in Thibodaux and 1-0 on a neutral court. The teams split their two meetings a year ago, with each holding serve at home. Lamar won the early meeting, 89-82, on Feb. 1 in Beaumont, before Nicholls State made 15 first-half 3-pointers to jump out to a 60-47 halftime lead and hold on for a 105-90 victory. Lamar has won eight of the last 10 meetings. Since returning to the SLC, Lamar is 11-3 vs. Nicholls State.

Scouting Nicholls State

Nicholls State enters the game having dropped its last six games (after upsetting SFA 58-57 in ot in the season-opener), including a tough 98-96 double-overtime game with UCA on Saturday. The Colonels played the sixth-toughest non-conference schedule in the country with contests against Florida State, Tulane, Cal, LSU, New Orleans, Alabama, then-No. 1 North Carolina, Minnesota and UNLV.

Junior Ryan Bathie leads a balanced scoring attack with 13.0 ppg (16.1 in SLC play), 3.7 rpg and 2.3 apg. Junior Anatoly Bose and freshman Dominic Friend are each pulling down 4.2 rpg, while junior Justin Payne is handing-out a team-best 2.3 apg.

As a team, Nicholls State averages 65 ppg on 40.9 percent shooting while allowing 73 ppg overall and 75.4 in SLC games. They rank third in the league in conference games in steals (9.71 per game) and turnover margin (+3.29).

Hopkins Turning Up The Heat

Senior G Darren Hopkins has turned up his production since league play began six games ago. After 13 non-conference games he was averaging 7.9 points on 32 percent shooting (just 28 percent from outside) and 3.5 rebounds, but in the last six games his numbers have escalated to 13.7 ppg on 45 percent shooting (42 percent from outside) and 6.0 boards

Balanced Scoring Has Been The Key

Through six conference games, Lamar has five players averaging double figures in scoring with the first and fifth scoring options separated by just 2.5 points per game. In fact, six different players have led the team in scoring over the course of the first six games.

Best shooters in the league?

Lamar Sanders ranks second in FG Pct at 64.3 pct, Currye Todd is first in 3-Point FG Pct at 48.3 pct and Kenny Dawkins is first in FT Pct. at 88.3 pct. No school has had two players lead the league in FG and FT shooting in the same season, let alone all three categories.

Offensive Rebounding Pleasing To Coach Roc

Head coach Steve Roccaforte has always wanted his players to play hard for 40 minutes. He is starting to get that response on the glass. In the last four games, Lamar is averaging 41.5 rpg and has attacked the offensive glass to the tune of 14, 20, 20 and 19 which has resulted in an average of 16.5 second-chance points per game. The Cardinals rank third in the SLC in offensive rebounds at 14.11.

Lamar In The NCAA Rankings

Lamar enters the Nicholls State contest ranked in the top 60 in the NCAA in three categories: scoring offense-14th, assists per game-23rd and steals per game-25th. Additionally, Kenny Dawkins ranks 16th in free throw percentage at 88.3 pct and 91st in assists per game at 4.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,994
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    janaxad4
    Newest Member
    janaxad4
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Englebert
      Why The Debate When The Parties Have Not Chosen Their Candidates?!

      By Englebert · Posted

      If your point was to lie about me, you succeeded. Congratulations. You must feel like a winner, aka Harry Reid.
    • BBfan061
      DCTF 3A D2 Preseason Rankings

      By BBfan061 · Posted

      I hope not….
    • thetragichippy
      This should Be No Surprise

      By thetragichippy · Posted

      Read it all - good info - thanks
    • tvc184
      Why The Debate When The Parties Have Not Chosen Their Candidates?!

      By tvc184 · Posted

      Two political opponents pointing to each other and calling each other a liar…..  Is like two roosters fighting  and then pointing to the other and calling him a chicken. 
    • tvc184
      This should Be No Surprise

      By tvc184 · Posted

      Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6. He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity. The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity. The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive).  What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country. The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity. A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove. As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work.  The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide. So…. For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity. For an official act, he has presumed immunity. Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity. In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established. Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime. Therefore…. Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court  has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act. Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out. If you don’t want to read all of that……  To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future. 

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...