The Bobcat Nation

Well, the game is about 13 minutes old, and it's so bad I am actually feeling sorry for the Griz....meal culpa! 21-6 Michigan....Morehead just missed a runaway dunk.

Michigan is playing pretty tight defense. Not giving them much. Not rooting for the griz, but am rooting for the Big Sky Conf to look a little better than this.

Griz are starting 5 guards, are 1/11 from 3PT, and have no answer on defense for Michigan's size inside. Could get ugly, unless Michigan decides to point shave... What's the spread, 15?

Down 22 now......

What has happened to the BSC?? In the mid 70's the griz narrowly lost to UCLA (they went on to win the National Title that year). In the mid 80's ISU beat UCLA and in the mid 2000's (I think) Weber made the Sweet 16. Now our best team (without question) cannot even compete with MIchigan.

Our league is so bad-you'd think it wouldn't be too tough to get better...yet here we are, looking for another new coach to save us.

All those bricks they put up could have finished "the wall".

The BSC might as well just dissolve for everything but football and track. I'm kidding--kind of--but this league is pathetic on a national scale in basketball.

Having said that, I think it would be equally pathetic if all Division-I football was in the same subdivision like basketball is. The conference's best football team wouldn't stand a chance against a top 10 FBS team either. I think the BSC would benefit from an FCS-type division in basketball. I wouldn't like that very much as a college basketball fan--I like the tournament too much--but it's the only way I see this conference being relevant. I just think the distance between the haves and have-nots has grown so much in the past 20-30 years. I thought the one-and-done era would be good for mid-majors, but I think the big schools have figured out how to navigate it. You might have a few that have crept up into national relevance like Wichita State, but I think we're even seeing that go away.

For the record, I'm not getting on board with the "Poor Grizzlies" theme on this one. To me they're the best basketball program in the conference and I think the gap might be widening. Hats off to them, they're just not close right now.

Mr Lisle wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:34 am

All those bricks they put up could have finished "the wall".

I did not watch the game but am guessing that shows the difference between BSC and the Big 10 defenses . Don't follow their stats but it has to be their lowest shooting % of the season for both fg's and 3's...

The griz missed a metric crap ton of easy shots. Sure Michigan came out with a lot of energy after what happened last year but the shots were there to keep it close.

gtapp wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:59 pm

What has happened to the BSC?? In the mid 70's the griz narrowly lost to UCLA (they went on to win the National Title that year). In the mid 80's ISU beat UCLA and in the mid 2000's (I think) Weber made the Sweet 16. Now our best team (without question) cannot even compete with MIchigan.

Your point is well taken, and I too am very shocked/disappointed by how far the BSC has fallen in the last 35 years or so. A few of your facts are off slightly though. No BSC team has made the Sweet 16 since Idaho in 1982. The BSC's only tourney wins since then have been one each in 1995 and 1999 by Weber, and one by UM in 2006. It was 1975 when UM lost to UCLA by only 3 points, which was the year John Wooden won the last of his 10 NC. It was 1977 when ISU beat UCLA to advance to the Elite 8, the last (and maybe only) time a BSC team has made it that far. It's almost unfathomable now, to imagine a BSC team getting one step away from the Final Four. BSC teams made it to the Sweet 16 3 times in a span of 8 years from 1975-1982. UM's close loss to UCLA in 1975, ISU's win over UCLA in 1977, and Idaho in 1982. There may have been a few more during that era as well.

Might have been interesting to see how the Griz would have done not playing a 6'7" guard in the paint all night.

Couple of things as I see it:

1.) Much as I hate the grizzlies, and as much joy as it gave me to watch them get pounded, they were far and away the best team in the Big Sky this year and losing like that doesn't help the perception of our conference.

2.) Continuing to get stuck in the #15 seed is not helping this conference, and I really thought the griz got shafted with a completely ridiculous draw this year. Their season earned them a better matchup. Besides being really boring having to play the same team as last year, this was a good team with a good resume who I felt deserved about a #13 seed, #14 at worst. Give the Big Sky games like that and our odds of winning a game every now and then certainly increases. I also felt like the griz got shafted with not only a bad seed but not getting to play down in Salt Lake. I could have understood if they moved them from a #14 to a #15 in order to give them a closer-to-home draw, but they took it on the chin in both regards.

3.) I loved watching Wofford play last night. I think smaller schools like MSU have to aim for winning games with teams like that, rather than by trying to play the same game as everybody else. Nothing to do with the fact that they were mostly white guys, just the style of ball they play I think makes it really difficult to play against, they aren't trying to out-athlete anyone - they're excellent at fundamentals (defense, rebounding) and can really shoot the 3. That's a model that I think MSU should try to replicate.

4.) The griz still suck.

BozoneCat wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:54 pm

Couple of things as I see it:

1.) Much as I hate the grizzlies, and as much joy as it gave me to watch them get pounded, they were far and away the best team in the Big Sky this year and losing like that doesn't help the perception of our conference.

2.) Continuing to get stuck in the #15 seed is not helping this conference, and I really thought the griz got shafted with a completely ridiculous draw this year. Their season earned them a better matchup. Besides being really boring having to play the same team as last year, this was a good team with a good resume who I felt deserved about a #13 seed, #14 at worst. Give the Big Sky games like that and our odds of winning a game every now and then certainly increases. I also felt like the griz got shafted with not only a bad seed but not getting to play down in Salt Lake. I could have understood if they moved them from a #14 to a #15 in order to give them a closer-to-home draw, but they took it on the chin in both regards.

3.) I loved watching Wofford play last night. I think smaller schools like MSU have to aim for winning games with teams like that, rather than by trying to play the same game as everybody else. Nothing to do with the fact that they were mostly white guys, just the style of ball they play I think makes it really difficult to play against, they aren't trying to out-athlete anyone - they're excellent at fundamentals (defense, rebounding) and can really shoot the 3. That's a model that I think MSU should try to replicate.

4.) The griz still suck.

I'm with you...somewhat. I think the BSC will continue to get bad seeds with bad showings. But they're having bad showings because of the bad seeds. Chicken or egg, I guess.

But you watch the selection shows and they always talk about good wins and bad losses. The BSC is a one bid league, so somebody's in and I'd guess it's a 15 or 16 seed type of league based on history, but a team can make a case for a better seed, as some teams have done over the years. UM had two bad losses to PSU, who finished 16-16 on one of the worst conferences in the country. Whey you're trying to make a case for yourself to be a better seed against the top teams in America, you can't lose to the PSU's of the world twice. On that national scale, the loss to EWU was a bad loss. Other losses (Arizona, Georgia Southern, Creighton, UC Irvine) didn't hurt IMO, but you'd like to see them get a win in one of those. As for good wins, I'd say their win over Georgia State was a good win, but nothing groundbreaking. NDSU was a solid win, so was Miami of Ohio, but again, nothing on a national scale that puts them over anybody else. I thought the Griz were right where they should have been.

kennethnoisewater wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:08 pm

BozoneCat wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:54 pm

Couple of things as I see it:

1.) Much as I hate the grizzlies, and as much joy as it gave me to watch them get pounded, they were far and away the best team in the Big Sky this year and losing like that doesn't help the perception of our conference.

2.) Continuing to get stuck in the #15 seed is not helping this conference, and I really thought the griz got shafted with a completely ridiculous draw this year. Their season earned them a better matchup. Besides being really boring having to play the same team as last year, this was a good team with a good resume who I felt deserved about a #13 seed, #14 at worst. Give the Big Sky games like that and our odds of winning a game every now and then certainly increases. I also felt like the griz got shafted with not only a bad seed but not getting to play down in Salt Lake. I could have understood if they moved them from a #14 to a #15 in order to give them a closer-to-home draw, but they took it on the chin in both regards.

3.) I loved watching Wofford play last night. I think smaller schools like MSU have to aim for winning games with teams like that, rather than by trying to play the same game as everybody else. Nothing to do with the fact that they were mostly white guys, just the style of ball they play I think makes it really difficult to play against, they aren't trying to out-athlete anyone - they're excellent at fundamentals (defense, rebounding) and can really shoot the 3. That's a model that I think MSU should try to replicate.

4.) The griz still suck.

I'm with you...somewhat. I think the BSC will continue to get bad seeds with bad showings. But they're having bad showings because of the bad seeds. Chicken or egg, I guess.

But you watch the selection shows and they always talk about good wins and bad losses. The BSC is a one bid league, so somebody's in and I'd guess it's a 15 or 16 seed type of league based on history, but a team can make a case for a better seed, as some teams have done over the years. UM had two bad losses to PSU, who finished 16-16 on one of the worst conferences in the country. Whey you're trying to make a case for yourself to be a better seed against the top teams in America, you can't lose to the PSU's of the world twice. On that national scale, the loss to EWU was a bad loss. Other losses (Arizona, Georgia Southern, Creighton, UC Irvine) didn't hurt IMO, but you'd like to see them get a win in one of those. As for good wins, I'd say their win over Georgia State was a good win, but nothing groundbreaking. NDSU was a solid win, so was Miami of Ohio, but again, nothing on a national scale that puts them over anybody else. I thought the Griz were right where they should have been.

I agree. I don't know how they could justify giving the griz anything better than a 15 seed to be honest. I will agree however playing the same team two years in a row is unheard of. They got screwed there more than anything.

I don't think the committee is concerned with how the Big Sky does in the tourney. We could lose 50 games in a row and it doesn't make a bit of a difference. They look at the entire body of work and actually do a pretty good job of that I think. If your play and your league and your wins only constitute a 15 seed....so be it. If your resume looks good, you have some quality wins, etc....you get rewarded like the griz did years back when they were a 12 seed and won their opening game. Since that year they've been a 13 a couple times and a 14 a couple times. This season I felt like they'd be a 15 or 16 but no way did I feel like they should have been a 14 or better.

I think what is MOST annoying is this was the Griz' NINTH trip to the dance since the last time the Cats have been there...

ilovethecats wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:29 pm

kennethnoisewater wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:08 pm

BozoneCat wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:54 pm

Couple of things as I see it:

1.) Much as I hate the grizzlies, and as much joy as it gave me to watch them get pounded, they were far and away the best team in the Big Sky this year and losing like that doesn't help the perception of our conference.

2.) Continuing to get stuck in the #15 seed is not helping this conference, and I really thought the griz got shafted with a completely ridiculous draw this year. Their season earned them a better matchup. Besides being really boring having to play the same team as last year, this was a good team with a good resume who I felt deserved about a #13 seed, #14 at worst. Give the Big Sky games like that and our odds of winning a game every now and then certainly increases. I also felt like the griz got shafted with not only a bad seed but not getting to play down in Salt Lake. I could have understood if they moved them from a #14 to a #15 in order to give them a closer-to-home draw, but they took it on the chin in both regards.

3.) I loved watching Wofford play last night. I think smaller schools like MSU have to aim for winning games with teams like that, rather than by trying to play the same game as everybody else. Nothing to do with the fact that they were mostly white guys, just the style of ball they play I think makes it really difficult to play against, they aren't trying to out-athlete anyone - they're excellent at fundamentals (defense, rebounding) and can really shoot the 3. That's a model that I think MSU should try to replicate.

4.) The griz still suck.

I'm with you...somewhat. I think the BSC will continue to get bad seeds with bad showings. But they're having bad showings because of the bad seeds. Chicken or egg, I guess.

But you watch the selection shows and they always talk about good wins and bad losses. The BSC is a one bid league, so somebody's in and I'd guess it's a 15 or 16 seed type of league based on history, but a team can make a case for a better seed, as some teams have done over the years. UM had two bad losses to PSU, who finished 16-16 on one of the worst conferences in the country. Whey you're trying to make a case for yourself to be a better seed against the top teams in America, you can't lose to the PSU's of the world twice. On that national scale, the loss to EWU was a bad loss. Other losses (Arizona, Georgia Southern, Creighton, UC Irvine) didn't hurt IMO, but you'd like to see them get a win in one of those. As for good wins, I'd say their win over Georgia State was a good win, but nothing groundbreaking. NDSU was a solid win, so was Miami of Ohio, but again, nothing on a national scale that puts them over anybody else. I thought the Griz were right where they should have been.

I agree. I don't know how they could justify giving the griz anything better than a 15 seed to be honest. I will agree however playing the same team two years in a row is unheard of. They got screwed there more than anything.

I don't think the committee is concerned with how the Big Sky does in the tourney. We could lose 50 games in a row and it doesn't make a bit of a difference. They look at the entire body of work and actually do a pretty good job of that I think. If your play and your league and your wins only constitute a 15 seed....so be it. If your resume looks good, you have some quality wins, etc....you get rewarded like the griz did years back when they were a 12 seed and won their opening game. Since that year they've been a 13 a couple times and a 14 a couple times. This season I felt like they'd be a 15 or 16 but no way did I feel like they should have been a 14 or better.

I think what is MOST annoying is this was the Griz' NINTH trip to the dance since the last time the Cats have been there...

Good points, can't really argue that. When I put them up against the teams that got #14 seeds this year, I thought those resumes were pretty similar and I would have at least liked to have seen them play a different team and get sent to SLC rather than friggin' Iowa. We keep seeing a lot of talk from the incoming BSC commish about improving the level of play in the conference, most importantly from the worst teams, but how you're going to do that from the conference side of things is beyond me. Seems to me that schools that invest more money into their program/coaches/facilities seem to be the ones who make the leap. I mean, we all know it doesn't help when schools like Sac State play in a (bad) high school gym, but what is the conference going to do about it?