Hofstra 61, Stony Brook 56 (Or: Can the Arena undergo a year’s worth of renovations, thereby pushing the Dutchmen to the PFC?)

Stony Brook's vaunted recruiting class did not feature werewolf Scott Howard, above.

Tom Pecora saw it coming before the rest of us, which is why he’s a well-compensated, well-dressed Division I coach and I’m an unemployed sportswriter typing this in shorts.

The Flying Dutchmen had extended their 11-point halftime lead to 13 and seemed more likely to double that advantage than lose it against a Stony Brook team that had been within one possession twice all night when Pecora called time out with 16:18 to play Wednesday. He saw the Dutchmen open the second half in a 2-for-8 funk from the field and probably sensed the additional momentum the Seawolves could gain in a claustrophobic, hostile building straight out of Hollywood central casting and wanted to nip any rally before it began.

Through no apparent fault of his own, he didn’t, and the rally not only began but built to a near-deafening crescendo as the Dutchmen—not to mention the handful of us hanging out in enemy territory—had to sweat out (it was like one million degrees in there) a 61-56 win that wasn’t clinched until Greg Washington—or, as Michael Litos points out today, GREG FREAKIN' WASHINGTON!!!—hit two free throws with eight seconds to play.

The high-powered offense that threatened to ring up triple digits on Towson Saturday was nowhere to be found, especially in the second half, when the Dutchmen shot an ice-cold 4-of-22. That’s right: The 2-for-8 stretch was as good as it got.

Actually, that’s not true. The Dutchmen made two of their first five shots to open the half. Then they missed six in a row over nearly eight minutes before Armanis Urbutis hit a layup to give the Dutchmen a 49-36 lead with 10:01 left. Then they missed two shots over the next three-and-a-half minutes before Cornelius Vines hit a 3-pointer for the final field goal of the game.

Hofstra missed its final six shots and scored its final eight points from the free throw line, though those points were nostalgically torturous: The Dutchmen were 15-of-27 from the line in the second half, including 3-of-8 after Vines’ 3-pointer before Charles Jenkins and Washington combined to hit five of their final six freebies.

Fortunately for Hofstra, the Seawolves were almost as errant and had no teenaged werewolf to lift them to a dramatic last-second victory: Stony Brook shot just 28.8 percent overall, including 27.6 percent in the second half, and was 12-of-20 from the line in the second half.

It wasn’t quite the momentum-building victory one would have preferred after the yup-they’re-for-real win over Towson. But not every win is going to be one worth savoring and placing in the ol’ time capsule.

That’s not to say the victory was without value. Good teams find ways to win games in which they don’t play well. Plus, playing at Stony Brook is probably as close to a conference game environment as the Dutchmen are going to find this month, especially with UMass stumbling along.

Just like last year, the game grew increasingly physical in the latter stages, with at least two instances in which players had to be pried apart following the whistle. In addition, Pritchard Gymnasium is going to be the difference in multiple America East victories for the Seawolves this year. That place is a pit, and I mean that as the highest of compliments. It’s loud and the fans are right on top of the action and I can only imagine how difficult it is to communicate in such an environment. It makes me pine for a return to the Physical Fitness Center, except even the PFC seems like a cavern compared to Pritchard.

This wasn’t a conference game, but just like on the road in the CAA, Pritchard is place from which you’re grateful to escape with a win, no matter how ugly it might have been.

The win also served as a nice reminder—to the Dutchmen as well as those of us driving the bandwagon—that the bus isn’t guaranteed to get on the highway and drive to a first-round site the third weekend of March.

As promising as this team has looked for most of the past month, it’s still a fairly inexperienced bunch (the two seniors who see the most playing time, Dane Johnson and Darren Townes, are transfers and the four four-year seniors bounce back and forth between the floor and the side of a milk carton) prone to the familiar free throw woes as well as head-scratching hiccups.

Litos also notes today that aside from Jenkins and Zygis Sestakos, the Dutchmen are shooting 54.6 percent from the line. That inability to hit throws that are free catches up to EVERYBODY in the end. Just ask Chris Douglas-Roberts.

The Dutchmen looked as if they’d blow Stony Brook out of the barn in the first half. They took a 10-point lead less than 10 minutes into the game and shot 55.2 percent in the first 20 minutes. Jenkins was clearly the best player on the floor—the dude goes from zero to 94 faster than anybody I’ve ever seen—and had one of those you’ve-got-to-be-kidding me moments when he drove the lane, whirled, got caught up in a handful of players and somehow hit a layup anyway.

When Stony Brook brought in its mammoth center Desmond Adedeji—who is such an awful and awkward free throw shooter that he makes his idol, Shaquille O’Neal, look like Calvin Murphy—Pecora responded by putting in Washington and Dane Johnson. It was probably just a coincidence, but it was pretty cool when those two were the first players on to the court for the Dutchmen following the timeout. Seemed to set the tone.

I thought there should have been some really dramatic music accompanying their entrance, like “Gonna Fly Now,” minus the awkward hug. Or maybe “Welcome To The Jungle,” minus one of the guys completely losing his mind and needing 15 years to make a pile of crap that turns into one of the epic bombs of all-time. Or at least “Beat It,” minus, well, you know, just about everything. But the game was at Stony Brook and I don’t think the powers that be there were in the mood to add mood music for the opposition.

Where was I? Oh yeah. Johnson and Washington combined for a ridiculous nine blocks, including six by Johnson—one of which he punctuated with a Dikembe Mutumbo-esque wag of the pointer finger, a gesture for which he was immediately warned by the ref. Yet the leading rebounder for the Dutchmen was Jenkins with seven and Stony Brook held a 42-40 rebounding edge—shocking considering how often it seemed as if multiple guys in blue uniforms were swarming a poor lonely Stony Brook guy down low.

The Dutchmen should have routed Stony Brook, but it was a one-possession game with 39 seconds to play. How did that happen? Who knows? But Pecora saw it happening before anybody, which has me figuring he spent today and will spend tomorrow making sure it doesn’t happen again Saturday against St. Francis.

Email Jerry at defiantlydutch@yahoo.com.

Let’s debate the impact of the debate

Because this is about the debate and how a Cinderella run in the NCAA Tournament would have a more tangible effect on the University...and I just can't stomach posting a picture of a George Mason Final Four ring.

So admitting this will probably mean either a.) a sudden raise in my Hofstra Pride Club membership or b.) a painful administration of a Hofstra Pride tattoo on my left bicep (still saving money to get a Starland Vocal Band tattoo there) by The Powers That Be, but here goes:

A little less than 24 hours before John McCain and Barack Obama take the stage at Hofstra Arena, I’m already tired of hearing about the debate—specifically all that jazz about the sustained boost Hofstra will get in publicity, name recognition and new applicants.

Don’t get me wrong: As someone who went to school there when the key athletic building on campus was the Physical Fitness Center, I think it’s really cool that Hofstra has advanced to the point where it can host a presidential debate. I’m not sure the dusty, bleacher-seated, once-was-the-home-arena-of-the-Long-Island-Surf PFC could have handled hosting a Student Senate presidential debate, never mind The Real Thing.

It blows my mind that America’s eyes will be trained on Hofstra Wednesday. I’ll also admit the wife and I go “whoo hoo” every time some talking head mentions the debate will be at Hofstra. Yes. We are dorks. I’m also insanely jealous of the Chronicle staff writers who get to cover this—as well as the earlier debates and the conventions.

And the University should be proud of hosting the debate and should be thumping its chest over all the publicity it’s receiving. From now until the end of time, the boilerplate on all Hofstra press releases should include something about the 2008 presidential debate.

I hope Educate ’08—the year-long series of events designed to, you guessed it, educate students about the election and politics—has resulted in campus-wide enlightenment. “I actually think there is an obligation for universities to try to inspire their students to be active participants in the democratic process,” Stuart Rabinowitz told the Associated Press in this article.

But let’s not be naïve enough to believe that Hofstra is doing this for the greater good. Hofstra’s hosting the debate because it’s good for Hofstra. It lends an unmistakable air of exclusivity and prestige to the school that will come in handy when The Powers That Be are raising funds—and tuition. Which is fine. That’s the name of the game on campuses nationwide.

The New York Daily News wrote today that “…Hofstra has received the kind of publicity money can’t buy,” in hosting the debate. Not quite true: Hofstra did indeed buy this publicity—it’s costing the University $3.5 million to put on the debate, according to the Daily News—and it plunked down the coinage because it realized the debate would provide an impressive return on a relatively minimal investment.

But that return won’t necessarily include a sizable increase in post-debate name recognition or applications. I understand the theory that Hofstra will get a bigger publicity boost than most debate hosts because the election is occurring at such a pivotal time in American history and because McCain and Obama will be discussing the economy and domestic policy, two incredibly timely topics, at the debate.

I just don’t buy it. I don’t believe the general public will correlate Hofstra with the debate at any time after, well, tomorrow. After all: Do you know where the first two presidential debates and the vice presidential debate were held? Do you know where the 2004 presidential debates were held? And do you know which university has hosted the most presidential debates?

I put my theory to the test with my good friend JG (I can’t call him a loyal reader, since he’s a Syracuse grad…should have seen the look of concern on his face as we sat in the nosebleeds of the Carrier Dome as the Flying Dutchmen nearly beat the Orangemen in 2004). He’s the biggest political junkie I know. Dude’s got bookcases full of books authored by people on both sides of the aisle.

And even HE doesn’t remember where the 2004 debates were held. “I’m sure you can look it up online,” he wrote.

Nor am I convinced that high schoolers around the land will watch the debate and suddenly start filling out Hofstra applications. Arizona State and Miami, the two schools that hosted presidential debates for the first time in 2004, experienced only minimal increases in applicants from 2005 to 2006. Arizona State had 19,914 applicants in 2005 and 20,702 in 2006 while Miami had 18,812 applicants in 2005 and 19,040 in 2006.

(I tried finding 2004 application information online but couldn’t…but I figured the 2005 to 2006 numbers would be telling as well since most people applying for 2005 would already be well into the process by the time the debates took place. Except for procrastinators like me, of course)

In addition, M. Frederic Volkmann, the vice chancellor for Public Affairs at Washington University, told The Chronicle (no, not that one) Of Higher Education in 2004 that he’s “…never seen any data that shows a change in enrollment or a fund-raising bounce” following a debate at Washington.

The lede of the Daily News story Tuesday, meanwhile, unintentionally sums up just how minimal a long-term boost Hofstra will enjoy from the debate: “Outside of scoring a Nobel Prize or having a basketball team play Cinderella in the NCAA Tournament, the fastest way for a college to leap onto the national stage is to host a presidential debate.”

It pains me to type this, but two days, two weeks, two years and two decades from now, many, many, many more people will remember George Mason for its Final Four run in 2006 than Hofstra for hosting a presidential debate. If you try to go toe-to-toe with a George Mason fan with “Yeah? Well, whose school has hosted a presidential debate lately?” you’ll be laughed out of the room.

Is that a reflection on America’s out-of-whack priorities? Sure. But I also long ago came to grips with the fact that a guy like Carl Pavano can make nearly 250 times as much money per year for barely throwing a baseball as my wife does for teaching.

Robert Baker, the director of the Center for Sport Management at George Mason, penned this interesting article for Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal in which he revealed that freshman applications increased 10 percent in both 2006-07 and 2007-08. And his conservative estimate of the value of the media exposure George Mason received for its run? How’s $677,474,659 sound?

Again: Hofstra’s earned the right to tout the debate as often as it wants. But after Wednesday, the impact of the debate will be about as wide-reaching as the WRHU signal.

“To me, this is priceless advertising,” Rabinowitz told the New York Times in August. But probably not as priceless or as valuable as $677,474,659, unfortunately.

Email Jerry at defiantlydutch@yahoo.com.