Men's b-ball - MSU limitations

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:24 pm

On this experimental thread, I would like to hear people expand more on the idea that MSU is simply a hard place to be successful in men's bball.

I don't mean for this to be an apologist thread by any means, but I think it would be interesting to gather some insight in terms of theories relating to why, perhaps, MSU is at a disadvantage over other schools.

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:42 pm

I can't think of any solid reasons why it should be significantly harder to win at MSU than any other Big Sky school. You can say it's tougher academic standards, but Duke and Stanford seem to do just fine with higher standards than most of the other schools in their conferences. Our facilities are as good as anyones except for Weber.

P.S. Griz fans, I am not comparing MSU's Academics to Duke or Stanford. They're just examples of schools which have excelled in basketball and are also very good academically.

Platinumcat · Post by **Platinumcat** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:45 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:On this experimental thread, I would like to hear people expand more on the idea that MSU is simply a hard place to be successful in men's bball.

I don't mean for this to be an apologist thread by any means, but I think it would be interesting to gather some insight in terms of theories relating to why, perhaps, MSU is at a disadvantage over other schools.

I guess it depends on what scope you are talking about. If it's Big Sky Conference, there is absolutely no reason that could justify it in my eyes.

We compete in track, tennis, football. Certainly we can in bball as well.

1BadBobcat · Post by **1BadBobcat** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:52 pm

In my opinion, we actually should have more advantages over other Big Sky schools. Our facilities are nicer than most, we have an athletic administration that historically has been more willing to let loose of dollars to spend on programs, and even with the lousy attendance figures we have had as of late we are still drawing more fans than most of the schools. I just really have to believe we have had a lack of direction and leadership.

rollo_tumasi · Post by **rollo_tumasi** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:54 pm

This is dumb... Have you ever been to Spokane? You can win any where. Build it(the program) and they will come.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:58 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:On this experimental thread, I would like to hear people expand more on the idea that MSU is simply a hard place to be successful in men's bball.

I don't mean for this to be an apologist thread by any means, but I think it would be interesting to gather some insight in terms of theories relating to why, perhaps, MSU is at a disadvantage over other schools.

Not that I think this is your opinion BAC, but I think just the opposite. I think MSU is actually at an advantage for recruiting. Great facilities, great fan support, fantastic academic school, wonderful location, fairly easy to get in and out of via air travel (non-stop to Minneapolis, Denver, SLC, Seattle, and even Atlanta sometimes). I think if there was any disadvantage to MSU it would be the Bozeman winter.... if you even call that a disadvantage.

Anyone who thinks it is hard to recruit at MSU is fooling themselves and making excuses.

duelalumnicat · Post by **duelalumnicat** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:59 pm

Ok, Bay Area Cat, three possible limitations immediately come to mind:

(1) MSU is traditionally a football school, not a basketball school.

(2) I am not sure if this is true, but I have been told that MSU will only admit JC players who have a minimum 2.5 gpa. The other Big Sky schools (including UM) will admit JC players who carry only a 2.0 gpa. Note that if this is true, it applies to all MSU sports, not just basketball.

(3) On the Sports Nuts today, Dean Alexander alluded to the possibility that MSU's basketball recruiting budget may be less than the basketball recruiting budgets at other (Big Sky?) schools. If this is true, it would also be a limitation.

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:00 pm

It could be harder to recruit players to Montana because players from big cities may not want to attend school in a small (population) state. How much do people really know about Montana? With their limited knowledge would they want to spend their next 5 years in that state? Of course now people think Montana and Wyoming are full of gay cowboys because of some movie.

The chips are stacked against us boys.

NoGriz · Post by **NoGriz** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:17 pm

I've never bought into the argument that it's hard to recruit and win at MSU. In relation to our peers in the Big Sky conference, our facilities, city, fan support, quality of university/education are right at the top. Some argue that it's hard to get inner city kids to come to Bozeman but that just makes an allusion that the only decent basketball players are minorities from the slum. There are plenty of good hoops players that would appreciate what MSU has to offer.

The recruiting budget issue could be a potential downside. I know that the Quarterback Club greatly subsidizes our football recruiting. Anyone know how our hoops recruiting budget stacks up against our conference peers?

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:39 pm

The Fieldhouse is pathetic for hoops.

The MBB budget is very lean.

As Duelalumni stated, MSU has very little, if any, basketball tradition over the last 40 years at least. Note - men's hoops was not that succesful prior to Mick taking over.

The Fieldhouse is pathetic for hoops.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:40 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:Note - men's hoops was not that succesful prior to Mick taking over.

A note to your note... men's hoops has not been that successful since Mick took over.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:41 pm

rollo_tumasi wrote:This is dumb... Have you ever been to Spokane? You can win any where. Build it(the program) and they will come.

rollo - I know you are not Pat Kennedy, but, dang, man, you sure sounded alike, right there for a sec!

Every chance I get, I plug a Hoops-only arena....we just need about $50MM minimum. I agree, if we had an arena like Weber, say, MSU hoops would definitely elevate itself.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:46 pm

The Fieldhouse is nicer than you think it is compared to more sucessful programs...

NoGriz · Post by **NoGriz** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:51 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:
The Fieldhouse is pathetic for hoops.

The Fieldhouse is obviously cavernous and not ideal but it is far from pathetic. I've been in lots of gyms around the country and our Fieldhouse is far from being an excuse that holds the program back.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:58 pm

Cat Pride wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:Note - men's hoops was not that succesful prior to Mick taking over.
A note to your note... men's hoops has not been that successful since Mick took over.

I was hoping to enlighten the few who may believe that Men's hoops has somehow gone downhill since Durham became head coach, when in fact the opposite is true based on blackandwhite statistics.

The following are the years that MSU Men's BB won the conference since 63'-'64:

'63-'64
'66-'67 (tie)
'86-'87
'95-'96
'01-'02

Therefore, an argument can be made that since Mick has been on staff, men's hoops has actually done better in the last 20 years compared to the previous 23 years. Since Mick has been on staff, MSU has gone to 3 post-season tournaments. In 20-some years (at least) prior to Mick being on staff, MSU went to ZERO post-season tournaments.

Those are the facts. Open your eyes and your mind.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:
Cat Pride wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:Note - men's hoops was not that succesful prior to Mick taking over.
A note to your note... men's hoops has not been that successful since Mick took over.
I was hoping to enlighten the few who may believe that Men's hoops has somehow gone downhill since Durham became head coach, when in fact the opposite is true based on blackandwhite statistics.

The following are the years that MSU Men's BB won the conference since 63'-'64:

'63-'64
'66-'67 (tie)
'86-'87
'95-'96
'01-'02

Therefore, an argument can be made that since Mick has been on staff, men's hoops has actually done better in the last 20 years compared to the previous 23 years. Since Mick has been on staff, MSU has gone to 3 post-season tournaments. In 20-some years (at least) prior to Mick being on staff, MSU went to ZERO post-season tournaments.

Those are the facts. Open your eyes and your mind.

And there you have it.... Mick is our savior.

Obviously I am blind and closed minded thinking the MSU bball program was not on the rise and dominating the Big Sky in the last 16 years.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:09 pm

OK - maybe I exagerated!

Not pathetic...just, not a good basketball venue. Any "hoops-only" arena would be a step better. I can make an argument that Belgrade has a nicer hoops arena if a team is looking for a home-court advantage. The Fieldhouse was built as a mult-purpose facility and it has done it's job magnificently. As that moniker implies, however, the Fieldhouse is not a great venue for anything, but an adequate facility for a lot of things...OK, maybe the Fieldhouse did one thing great - College National Finals Rodeo.

rollo mentioned Spokane. $100MM buys a lot of excitement, and recruits.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:16 pm

Cat Pride wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:
Cat Pride wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:Note - men's hoops was not that succesful prior to Mick taking over.
A note to your note... men's hoops has not been that successful since Mick took over.
I was hoping to enlighten the few who may believe that Men's hoops has somehow gone downhill since Durham became head coach, when in fact the opposite is true based on blackandwhite statistics.

The following are the years that MSU Men's BB won the conference since 63'-'64:

'63-'64
'66-'67 (tie)
'86-'87
'95-'96
'01-'02

Therefore, an argument can be made that since Mick has been on staff, men's hoops has actually done better in the last 20 years compared to the previous 23 years. Since Mick has been on staff, MSU has gone to 3 post-season tournaments. In 20-some years (at least) prior to Mick being on staff, MSU went to ZERO post-season tournaments.

Those are the facts. Open your eyes and your mind.
And there you have it.... Mick is our savior. Obviously I am blind and closed minded thinking the MSU bball program was not on the rise and dominating the Big Sky in the last 16 years.

Hey, don't let the facts get in the way of good lynching...

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:22 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:
Cat Pride wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:
Cat Pride wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:Note - men's hoops was not that succesful prior to Mick taking over.
A note to your note... men's hoops has not been that successful since Mick took over.
I was hoping to enlighten the few who may believe that Men's hoops has somehow gone downhill since Durham became head coach, when in fact the opposite is true based on blackandwhite statistics.

The following are the years that MSU Men's BB won the conference since 63'-'64:

'63-'64
'66-'67 (tie)
'86-'87
'95-'96
'01-'02

Therefore, an argument can be made that since Mick has been on staff, men's hoops has actually done better in the last 20 years compared to the previous 23 years. Since Mick has been on staff, MSU has gone to 3 post-season tournaments. In 20-some years (at least) prior to Mick being on staff, MSU went to ZERO post-season tournaments.

Those are the facts. Open your eyes and your mind.
And there you have it.... Mick is our savior. Obviously I am blind and closed minded thinking the MSU bball program was not on the rise and dominating the Big Sky in the last 16 years.
Hey, don't let the facts get in the way of good lynching...

If your OK with Mick's record fine, MSU is right where is should be after 16 years with the same guy. I know this amazes you but some of us aren't satisfied.

NoGriz · Post by **NoGriz** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:22 pm

Bleedin...

If I'm not mistaken, I think Starner was the coach in 86 and 87. He took one team to the NCAA tourney against St. Johns and also had a home NIT game against Washington. I was at the Washington game and the fieldhouse was a zoo -- boy I'd love to see that happen again. I'm pretty sure Mick only has one NCAA appearance and one NIT appearance.

Men's b-ball - MSU limitations

Men's b-ball - MSU limitations

Re: Men's b-ball - MSU limitations

Re: Men's b-ball - MSU limitations