Syracuse Toying with UM

[John K]

We need a league of our own or at least a tournament other than the NCAA for our conference champion!

No question. This is just stupid. BSC teams make it close less often than they get blown out. Everything has to go just right or the other team has to be way overrated, like Nevada was a couple years ago when UM beat them, or play like crap for a BSC team to get a win. UM gave New Mexico a good game a few years ago, but like Gonzaga, UNM is another annually overrated team as you saw last night. Last night was the biggest win (47 points) by a team seeded 3 or lower. It broke a record set just a couple hours earlier when Akron was wasted by VCU. Akron was playing without four starters and VCU is a run-n-gun outfit, so they had a decent excuse.

On a more serious note, I have always wished that we had some type of "mid-major" league for hoops like we do with the FCS in football.

The CIT that Weber is playing in is all mid-majors. Nobody cares about it, including some of the teams in it.

Every season isn't a blowout for the Big Sky team. It's just another low major league's turn to have a good game this year-like Southern against Gonzaga.

The reason no one is interested in playing in the CIT is because they're in a division where the ultimate tourney is the NCAA. If you change that, the teams will be interested. A Big Sky team could go undefeated and it still is an extreme longshot to even make the Sweet 16. The WCC is way better than the BSC, but the WCC is waaaaaay behind the PAC12, which is waaaaaaay behind the Big Ten. Gonzaga is a joke as No. 1 seed and a lot of people aren't surprised they had trouble with Southern, which isn't good at all. They lucked out and got to the Elite Eight a couple times, but they look primed to be out on Saturday when they play Wichita State.

Isn't that what they made Division II sports for?

Just as in football, I think there's quite a few conferences/programs that would welcome the opportunity to play basketball at a level higher than D-II, without having to compete against the "power' conferences of D-I. If the BSC could ever reach the level of conferences like the Horizon, Summit, WCC, et al., so that our champ had a legitimate chance to make some noise in the tourney once in a while, then I'd feel differently. But three tourney wins in the past 31 years, and zero Sweet 16 appearances in that time, tells me that the BSC is in over it's head trying to compete at this level.

[SonomaCat]

Isn't that basically just saying that we want to be D-II in terms of competition, but we really like to tell our friends that we're D-1?

So would we want to create a subdivision for volleyball as well? How about T&F and tennis?

[SonomaCat]

I'd also argue that a smaller program gets far more national visibility and press and fan excitement by winning even just one game in the NCAA tournament than it would get from winning the "championship" for a lower division tournament.

Very few people pay attention to the NIT or CIT now, and few would care any more if those schools had willfully forfeited their right to play in the Big Dance. In fact, even fewer people would probably care about that kind of tournament, as it would include zero big name programs.

The programs that willfully excluded themselves from the Big Dance and instead opted for the mini-Dance would essentially be competing exclusively with D-II and lower schools for recruits, as even a school like Montana can recruit a kid by pointing to the fact that they will play on the largest stage perhaps once of twice (or more) during their time at that school. The dream is alive. Removing oneself from that would really kill the status of any program/conference.

[John K]

Isn't that basically just saying that we want to be D-II in terms of competition, but we really like to tell our friends that we're D-1?

So would we want to create a subdivision for volleyball as well? How about T&F and tennis?

Isn't that why I-AA was originally created for football? So that I-AA programs could "pretend" that they were D-I in football, even though for all intents and purposes they're not, since they don't compete at the highest level? As for the sports other than basketball and football, I think it's easier for conferences like the BSC to compete with the "big boys" in those sports. And frankly most fans don't really care what level we compete at, or how successful we are (or aren't), in those other sports. You don't see too many threads on BN debating whether or not our T & F coach should be fired, the way Huse's fate has been debated recently.

[John K]

I'd also argue that a smaller program gets far more national visibility and press and fan excitement by winning even just one game in the NCAA tournament than it would get from winning the "championship" for a lower division tournament.

Very few people pay attention to the NIT or CIT now, and few would care any more if those schools had willfully forfeited their right to play in the Big Dance. In fact, even fewer people would probably care about that kind of tournament, as it would include zero big name programs.

The programs that willfully excluded themselves from the Big Dance and instead opted for the mini-Dance would essentially be competing exclusively with D-II and lower schools for recruits, as even a school like Montana can recruit a kid by pointing to the fact that they will play on the largest stage perhaps once of twice (or more) during their time at that school. The dream is alive. Removing oneself from that would really kill the status of any program/conference.

In general, I agree with you about that, but I doubt that UM's 47-point beatdown last week did much to enhance their national prestige. So do you think that we should move up to FBS (I've finally caved, and have given up my longstanding insistence on referring to it as I-AA) in football? You could make the point that the BSC is closer to being a true "mid-major" in football, than it is in basketball. The BSC, including MSU, has held their own pretty well the past few seasons when going up against mid to lower level FBS programs. I would say that in general, the BSC has been more competitive when "playing up" in football, than it's been in the NCAA tourney in basketball.

[SonomaCat]

Isn't that basically just saying that we want to be D-II in terms of competition, but we really like to tell our friends that we're D-1?

So would we want to create a subdivision for volleyball as well? How about T&F and tennis?

Isn't that why I-AA was originally created for football? So that I-AA programs could "pretend" that they were D-I in football, even though for all intents and purposes they're not, since they don't compete at the highest level? As for the sports other than basketball and football, I think it's easier for conferences like the BSC to compete with the "big boys" in those sports. And frankly most fans don't really care what level we compete at, or how successful we are (or aren't), in those other sports. You don't see too many threads on BN debating whether or not our T & F coach should be fired, the way Huse's fate has been debated recently.

I think 1-AA was created so schools could compete in basketball, primarily, at the D-1 level, while still having a lower-division (cheaper) football program.

But when you remove playing D-1 basketball from the equation, it's awfully hard to come up with a good reason for a school to not just move to D-II.

It's actually not that hard for us to compete with the big boys in basketball (as compared to football). Look at Gonzaga. If we devoted the resources to basketball that we have to football, MSU could probably be a program that made noise in the tourney on a regular basis.

[SonomaCat]

I'd also argue that a smaller program gets far more national visibility and press and fan excitement by winning even just one game in the NCAA tournament than it would get from winning the "championship" for a lower division tournament.

Very few people pay attention to the NIT or CIT now, and few would care any more if those schools had willfully forfeited their right to play in the Big Dance. In fact, even fewer people would probably care about that kind of tournament, as it would include zero big name programs.

The programs that willfully excluded themselves from the Big Dance and instead opted for the mini-Dance would essentially be competing exclusively with D-II and lower schools for recruits, as even a school like Montana can recruit a kid by pointing to the fact that they will play on the largest stage perhaps once of twice (or more) during their time at that school. The dream is alive. Removing oneself from that would really kill the status of any program/conference.

In general, I agree with you about that, but I doubt that UM's 47-point beatdown last week did much to enhance their national prestige. So do you think that we should move up to FBS (I've finally caved, and have given up my longstanding insistence on referring to it as I-AA) in football? You could make the point that the BSC is closer to being a true "mid-major" in football, than it is in basketball. The BSC, including MSU, has held their own pretty well the past few seasons when going up against mid to lower level FBS programs. I would say that in general, the BSC has been more competitive when "playing up" in football, than it's been in the NCAA tourney in basketball.

If football had a true tournament format, like basketball does, where the BSC champ would have a shot at playing in the playoffs each year, then I'd definitely be in favor of stepping up to the highest level of football. That would be awesome.

[SonomaCat]

The BSC, including MSU, has held their own pretty well the past few seasons when going up against mid to lower level FBS programs. I would say that in general, the BSC has been more competitive when "playing up" in football, than it's been in the NCAA tourney in basketball.

The big difference there is that, in the tournament, you don't get to play the bottom feeders (you play the great teams). In basketball, we BEAT the bottom feeders (except when it turns out that we are the bottom feeders). It's not at all unusual for a BSC team to beat a MWC or Pac-12 program during the regular season. In football, it's seen as a pretty big deal when one of our teams beats even a horrible 1-A team.

[John K]

Isn't that basically just saying that we want to be D-II in terms of competition, but we really like to tell our friends that we're D-1?

So would we want to create a subdivision for volleyball as well? How about T&F and tennis?

Isn't that why I-AA was originally created for football? So that I-AA programs could "pretend" that they were D-I in football, even though for all intents and purposes they're not, since they don't compete at the highest level? As for the sports other than basketball and football, I think it's easier for conferences like the BSC to compete with the "big boys" in those sports. And frankly most fans don't really care what level we compete at, or how successful we are (or aren't), in those other sports. You don't see too many threads on BN debating whether or not our T & F coach should be fired, the way Huse's fate has been debated recently.

I think 1-AA was created so schools could compete in basketball, primarily, at the D-1 level, while still having a lower-division (cheaper) football program.

But when you remove playing D-1 basketball from the equation, it's awfully hard to come up with a good reason for a school to not just move to D-II.

It's actually not that hard for us to compete with the big boys in basketball (as compared to football). Look at Gonzaga. If we devoted the resources to basketball that we have to football, MSU could probably be a program that made noise in the tourney on a regular basis.

UM and WSU place a far greater emphasis on basketball than does MSU (apparently...judging by their much greater success), and even they don't make noise in the tourney on a regular basis. WSU has two wins in the past 30 plus years, and UM has one. Saying that we should be able to compete in basketball because Gonzaga does, sounds just like the UI fans who point to BSU's success, as a reason why they should be able to compete at the FBS level in football. You're comparing apples to oranges in both those scenarios.

[John K]

And further, we wouldn't have to be as good as Gonzaga for me to feel that we should stay at the highest level. If the BSC could manage to win a game in the tourney once every 3 or 4 years on average, and maybe get a team to the Sweet 16 once every 5-8 years or so, I'd agree with you completely. But our conference hasn't come close to achieving even that modest level of success over the past 30 years.

[SonomaCat]

Neither UM or Weber commits nearly as many resources to basketball as we do to football, either, which was the point I was making.

Said more explicitly, if we spent as much money on basketball as we do on football, I'm pretty sure we'd have a notable basketball program (and with a little luck in using those resources wisely to hire a top shelf coach, like Gonzaga did to get them there, we could potentially be "like" Gonzaga). Giving how many fewer players/coaches there are for basketball than football, that amount of money would go a long ways.

Schools like Gonzaga don't have football, so they devote their resources and alumni giving focus on basketball ... and it has paid off for them.

Of course, the downside for them is that they don't get to have football ... which kinda sucks for them.

[John K]

Neither UM or Weber commits nearly as many resources to basketball as we do to football, either, which was the point I was making.

Said more explicitly, if we spent as much money on basketball as we do on football, I'm pretty sure we'd have a notable basketball program (and with a little luck in using those resources wisely to hire a top shelf coach, like Gonzaga did to get them there, we could potentially be "like" Gonzaga). Giving how many fewer players/coaches there are for basketball than football, that amount of money would go a long ways.

Schools like Gonzaga don't have football, so they devote their resources and alumni giving focus on basketball ... and it has paid off for them.

Of course, the downside for them is that they don't get to have football ... which kinda sucks for them.

It seems to me that you're making my point for me. The reason comparing MSU to Gonzaga is "apples and oranges" is precisely what you just said...we have football and they don't. We're never going to be able to devote the resources to basketball that Gonzaga does for that very reason. Saying something is theoretically possible, and having it be realistically possible, are two completely different things. I think I can say with almost 100% certainty that you're not in favor of MSU dropping football, but that's the only way that we could ever possibly hope to be "like Gonzaga" in basketball.

[SonomaCat]

Neither UM or Weber commits nearly as many resources to basketball as we do to football, either, which was the point I was making.

Said more explicitly, if we spent as much money on basketball as we do on football, I'm pretty sure we'd have a notable basketball program (and with a little luck in using those resources wisely to hire a top shelf coach, like Gonzaga did to get them there, we could potentially be "like" Gonzaga). Giving how many fewer players/coaches there are for basketball than football, that amount of money would go a long ways.

Schools like Gonzaga don't have football, so they devote their resources and alumni giving focus on basketball ... and it has paid off for them.

Of course, the downside for them is that they don't get to have football ... which kinda sucks for them.

It seems to me that you're making my point for me. The reason comparing MSU to Gonzaga is "apples and oranges" is precisely what you just said...we have football and they don't. We're never going to be able to devote the resources to basketball that Gonzaga does for that very reason. Saying something is theoretically possible, and having it be realistically possible, are two completely different things. I think I can say with almost 100% certainty that you're not in favor of MSU dropping football, but that's the only way that we could ever possibly hope to be "like Gonzaga" in basketball.

Okay, so it sounds like we essentially agree. My point was to illustrate that it's easier for a small school to compete in basketball than it is in football, and further why those small schools want to be Division 1 for basketball but can't necessarily make that work--especially in a bowl system--for their football programs (citing Gonzaga as the low-hanging fruit example). I wasn't proposing that MSU go the route of being basketball only.

However, if we could excite the fanbase and raise/invest more money into the basketball program (particularly in coaching salaries and facilities), I have no doubt it would do wonders for the results we'd see.

[John K]

Neither UM or Weber commits nearly as many resources to basketball as we do to football, either, which was the point I was making.

Said more explicitly, if we spent as much money on basketball as we do on football, I'm pretty sure we'd have a notable basketball program (and with a little luck in using those resources wisely to hire a top shelf coach, like Gonzaga did to get them there, we could potentially be "like" Gonzaga). Giving how many fewer players/coaches there are for basketball than football, that amount of money would go a long ways.

Schools like Gonzaga don't have football, so they devote their resources and alumni giving focus on basketball ... and it has paid off for them.

Of course, the downside for them is that they don't get to have football ... which kinda sucks for them.

It seems to me that you're making my point for me. The reason comparing MSU to Gonzaga is "apples and oranges" is precisely what you just said...we have football and they don't. We're never going to be able to devote the resources to basketball that Gonzaga does for that very reason. Saying something is theoretically possible, and having it be realistically possible, are two completely different things. I think I can say with almost 100% certainty that you're not in favor of MSU dropping football, but that's the only way that we could ever possibly hope to be "like Gonzaga" in basketball.

Okay, so it sounds like we essentially agree. My point was to illustrate that it's easier for a small school to compete in basketball than it is in football, and further why those small schools want to be Division 1 for basketball but can't necessarily make that work--especially in a bowl system--for their football programs (citing Gonzaga as the low-hanging fruit example). I wasn't proposing that MSU go the route of being basketball only.

However, if we could excite the fanbase and raise/invest more money into the basketball program (particularly in coaching salaries and facilities), I have no doubt it would do wonders for the results we'd see.

I definitely agree with you on that point. I'd also add recruiting to the list, along with coach's salaries and facilities. I'm guessing that our recruiting budget is fairly tight in basketball, compared to football (on a relative basis...obviously there'e going to be a difference when you're signing 3-5 players per year versus 15-20), and also as compared to UM's and WSU's basketball programs.

[Hawks86]

MSU spent more on recruiting and a little less in coaching compared to UM.

http://mus.edu/board/meetings/2013/Jan2 ... Campus.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[John K]

MSU spent more on recruiting and a little less in coaching compared to UM.

http://mus.edu/board/meetings/2013/Jan2 ... Campus.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmmm...that's interesting. I thought someone had posted in another thread that our basketball recruiting budget was quite tight, although I could be "mis-remembering" that. At any rate, it's interesting that we're apparently spending more money to recruit far less talented players, as compared to UM.

[gtapp]

MSU spent more on recruiting and a little less in coaching compared to UM.

http://mus.edu/board/meetings/2013/Jan2 ... Campus.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmmm...that's interesting. I thought someone had posted in another thread that our basketball recruiting budget was quite tight, although I could be "mis-remembering" that. At any rate, it's interesting that we're apparently spending more money to recruit far less talented players, as compared to UM.

It takes a lot of effort to find players who are not very good and will leave after one or two years. You don't just find them in your backyard!!!

[technoCat]

Wait I'm confused, those are the numbers for our entire athletic budget right? Not just basketball?

[Hawks86]

Wait I'm confused, those are the numbers for our entire athletic budget right? Not just basketball?

Click on the school and you get numbers for each sport.

[WalkOn79]

Well the Griz did make the "One Shining Moment" highlight last night......

The Dance Team anyway!