• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Selected Conference Only Stats

P

PlayerRep

Well-known member
UM is the leading defensive rebounding team and the worst offensive rebounding team, resulting in overall 8th in rebounding. I thought that was quite interesting. Note that UM is the top shooting team, so that would probably have a small negative impact on offensive rebounding. In any event, UM is not a good offensive rebounding team. Weber is 6th in rebounding, only .5 ahead of UM.

Weber is 1st in scoring, and UM is 3rd. UM is the 1st in scoring margin, at 14.5.

UM is clearly the leading defensive team, giving up only 59.2 per game compared to 67.4 for 2nd Weber. UM is first (38.1) in FG percentage defense, and Weber is 2nd (42.2). UM is 1st in defense against the 3 (30.3). Weber is 5th (38.1). UM is 2nd in blocked shots; Weber is 5th.

UM is 1st in shooting percentage (50.3); Weber is 3rd. UM is 2nd in free throw percentage (75.6). Weber is 1st at 80.8.

Cherry is 5th in scoring. Jamar, Ward and Steward are 11th, 16th and 18th. Steward is 1st in shooting percentage (63.4), Ward is 9th and Cherry is 13th. Cherry is 6th in free throw percentage (82.1). Cherry is 9th in 3-pt percenage (43.8), and has the 7th most in the conference. Jamar and Selvig are also in the 43rd percentile.

Selvig is 3rd in blocked shots. Cherry is 1st in steals.
 
Two things that Weber does well, and are important in close games, is shoot free throws and take care of the ball. Weber actually leads the nation in FT% at .800 (.808 in conference games), and leads the conference in TOs at 10.2/game (9.6 in conference games). If that last game is close at the end, I like Weber's chances. :twocents:
 
for the reasons listed about, it is a shame that the Big Sky is only a 1 bid league. Would love to see both Montana and Weber get a shot in the dance.
 
putter said:
for the reasons listed about, it is a shame that the Big Sky is only a 1 bid league. Would love to see both Montana and Weber get a shot in the dance.
Click to expand...
Had the Griz won at Oregon State and SF, ND, and Colo State, I think the chances of having 2 BSC teams in the tourny would be far greater than now....the PAC 10 is simply not very good or consistent from game to game, and they usually get at least 4-5 teams in...this could have been a year to get 2, not likely without the wins..an NIT invite is highly possible but UM did not even do well against a mid rank team in Duquesne last year...might be better this time around...
 
This thread seems to be making assumption the Griz won't win the Weber State game in Missoula or win the tournament since it would have a good chance of being in Missoula. If both team run the table both games would be in Missoula and if the home team won Weber would only have six losses and possibility of twenty-four wins. So wouldn't a 24-6 record and perhaps the leading scorer in the NCAAs have a chance for a second berth. Or are RPIs everything that counts.
 
You'd like to think that 24-6 would be good enough. The problems for Weber are:

(1) RPI. If they lose two more games -- even to Montana -- their RPI will probably drop below 100 (they're at 91 right now). That's probably uncharted territory for an at-large.

(2) Strength of Schedule. Weber's is awful, coming in at something like 275. Their best win is Montana (RPI 103) and of course they have a bad loss to ISU. They have zero good wins, and their best non-conference win was to Utah State, who is something like 145.

That combo is not going to get you into the tournament, particularly if you don't win a low-mid major regular season conference title.

Now Montana would at least get a few seconds worth of consideration should they win the league, but somehow lose the title game. They have one marquee win (LBSU), and although they have a few bad losses, their SoS is considerably better than Weber's. That said, it won't be enough.

So, simply win out Griz!!!
 
i've told this story before. it's about football but it applies to basketball too.

several years ago i went with my brother to watch montana play portland state in portland. as is my wont, we went early to watch the warmups. as we got to our seats, the quarterbacks were taking snaps from center and tossing passes to the receivers. the p.s.u. quarterback was throwing darts, their receivers were speedy and running precise routes, while our receivers looked a tad slower and our qb's didn't look any better that their qb. my brother watched the two teams for a while and said, "so why is montana such a powerhouse? who are your key players?" and at that moment, almost on cue, out of the tunnel just beneath us, strolled montana's offensive linemen. there were about eight of them, and they were not only huge, they were built like piano movers. they might have come straight from gold's gym. i said strolled, they actually swaggered. and my brother said, "oh, i think i get it now."

so it is with basketball. montana beat ucla last year in pauley because quale was the best center on the court and cherry was better than their point guard. we almost took out new mexico because they couldn't stop qvale. we beat nevada in the first round because on that night, andrew strait outplayed their more ballyhooed center. you cannot compete without the big guys, either in football or basketball. in 1-aa, we have dominated over the years because of our superior trench players. in basketball, we've excelled when we had great post players--mckenzie, krysko, tinks, engellant, qvale. unhappily, qvale is gone, and reader is out.

and how ironic. just think that for two years in a row, the team that won the california state championship at the highest level had a player that dominated the championship game--first cherry, then jamarr. and tinks recruited both of them. for years the rap was that we were big and slow, not athletic enough. now we've got athletes all over the floor, but with qvale gone and reader out, we have no real bona fide big man.

so post season? don't get your hopes up. not only will we not make any waves, we won't create a ripple or even a tiny splash. a conference with no quality big men will never go far in the post season. that's just the law of football and basketball, pure and simple, and it applies both to montana and to weber.
 
Hmmmm, not sure I completely agree. While it is, of course, beneficial to have a great big man, college basketball is almost exclusively a perimeter game anymore. Big men are valuable when they are enough of a scoring threat to draw a double and kick to a shooter.

That said, I agree that Montana's lack of depth down low could hurt them on the national level. But hell, let's be honest, when you're Montana, just getting to the national level is a win.
 
citay said:
i've told this story before. it's about football but it applies to basketball too.

several years ago i went with my brother to watch montana play portland state in portland. as is my wont, we went early to watch the warmups. as we got to our seats, the quarterbacks were taking snaps from center and tossing passes to the receivers. the p.s.u. quarterback was throwing darts, their receivers were speedy and running precise routes, while our receivers looked a tad slower and our qb's didn't look any better that their qb. my brother watched the two teams for a while and said, "so why is montana such a powerhouse? who are your key players?" and at that moment, almost on cue, out of the tunnel just beneath us, strolled montana's offensive linemen. there were about eight of them, and they were not only huge, they were built like piano movers. they might have come straight from gold's gym. i said strolled, they actually swaggered. and my brother said, "oh, i think i get it now."

so it is with basketball. montana beat ucla last year in pauley because quale was the best center on the court and cherry was better than their point guard. we almost took out new mexico because they couldn't stop qvale. we beat nevada in the first round because on that night, andrew strait outplayed their more ballyhooed center. you cannot compete without the big guys, either in football or basketball. in 1-aa, we have dominated over the years because of our superior trench players. in basketball, we've excelled when we had great post players--mckenzie, krysko, tinks, engellant, qvale. unhappily, qvale is gone, and reader is out.

and how ironic. just think that for two years in a row, the team that won the california state championship at the highest level had a player that dominated the championship game--first cherry, then jamarr. and tinks recruited both of them. for years the rap was that we were big and slow, not athletic enough. now we've got athletes all over the floor, but with qvale gone and reader out, we have no real bona fide big man.

so post season? don't get your hopes up. not only will we not make any waves, we won't create a ripple or even a tiny splash. a conference with no quality big men will never go far in the post season. that's just the law of football and basketball, pure and simple, and it applies both to montana and to weber.
Click to expand...
I remember a Princeton team that disproves everything you wrote. I partially agree but think you don't give the team enough credit. I think they will beat Weber who is basically a one man team with a couple support players but you are right about the tournament...one win is possible depending upon the seed but the Griz play at Oregon State gives everyone pause...Next year is truly apropos for this team....
 
EverettGriz said:
Hmmmm, not sure I completely agree. While it is, of course, beneficial to have a great big man, college basketball is almost exclusively a perimeter game anymore. Big men are valuable when they are enough of a scoring threat to draw a double and kick to a shooter.

That said, I agree that Montana's lack of depth down low could hurt them on the national level. But hell, let's be honest, when you're Montana, just getting to the national level is a win.
Click to expand...
I agree to a point with you, but your last sentence just cries out "victim"....and it shows how much the "we can't compete with the 'big guys'" attitude keeps UM in the hinterlands....it wasn't always like that..the same thing is true about football, even with its record setting success....guess it is the little man syndrome...
 
C'mon LA. I'm as big a proponent of Griz BB as there is. I think -- depending on their seed -- that Montana has a fair shot at a first round upset. But it would BE an upset. We are a top team in a LOW mid-major conference. Our RPI is 100, which is good, but only puts is in the top 1/3 of all DI teams in the nation. I'm simply looking at things realistically. This team ain't gonna beat Syracuse no matter how often you say that's crying "victim".

And really?? It hasn't always been that way?? Please. Even in the heyday of Griz BB (mid 80s, early 90s), the vast majority of the time the Griz didn't even sniff the NCAA tournament. Their one great appearance -- nearly knocking off UCLA -- came in a vastly different era, when only 32 teams made the tournament and it was truly set up in "regions", so that UM only faced teams in the "West". It's a whole 'nother ballgame today.

If that means you think I'm playing the victim card, I'd say it's time for a little reality check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top