the..."BIG SKY"....27th out of 33 Conferences

[Potomac Griz]

I agree with the poster who said that UM needs to start winning games against very average non-conference teams, before it can be taken seriously. Look, we lost to powerhouse South Dakota State at home, and beat West Coast super-team San Diego by a single point at home. We were schooled on the road three times by teams who are not very good. How can anyone seriously think that this team is very good?

It is true that the Big Sky Conference used to be a much better conference than it is today. We used to routinely beat good teams at home as well as on the road.

Which three teams did we get "schooled" by who aren't very good?

Close loss to Colorado State - Record of 7-2, #38 in RPI, were getting votes for the top 25.
BYU - Record of 7-3, #9 in the Mid Major poll, #53 RPI.
San Francisco - Record of 5-3, RPI of #79 with a win over 8-3 (#54) St Johns.

First off, we weren't "schooled" by Colorado State or San Francisco. We lost to them on the road... Colorado State was a 7 point loss and was a very close game all game.
San Francsico was a 10 point loss that was a 5 point game with about 4 1/2 minutes to go. Not exactly a blowout..
Sure we got our asses handed to us by BYU @ BYU.. I'll give you that one, but to say BYU isn't a very good team is inaccurate.

Yes, we don't have any "impressive" wins this season, but our losses weren't exactly against shitty teams like you seem to be saying.

I do agree though that this is an off year for the Big Sky.

 

[EverettGriz]

2 close losses and a loss that wasn't as bad as the score indicated to 3 pretty damn good teams, all on the the road, all without the best player in the league.

Are we happy? No. Are we satisfied? No. Were they bad losses. Absofuckinglylutely no!!

 

[mtgrizrule]

2 close losses and a loss that wasn't as bad as the score indicated to 3 pretty damn good teams, all on the the road, all without the best player in the league.

Are we happy? No. Are we satisfied? No. Were they bad losses. Absofuckinglylutely no!!

Even in the Big Sky's best years, it is a one bid conference. Tinkle has the right right approach, win the conference, and tournament!!! 2011-12 season was as close the Big Sky could get to 2 bids. Both Montana and Weber State earned the right. Even then, Weber State did not even sniff the NIT, which was a joke in its self. A 14 or 15 seed is the best to hope for this year.

 

[EverettGriz]

2 close losses and a loss that wasn't as bad as the score indicated to 3 pretty damn good teams, all on the the road, all without the best player in the league.

Are we happy? No. Are we satisfied? No. Were they bad losses. Absofuckinglylutely no!!

Even in the Big Sky's best years, it is a one bid conference. Tinkle has the right right approach, win the conference, and tournament!!! 2011-12 season was as close the Big Sky could get to 2 bids. Both Montana and Weber State earned the right. Even then, Weber State did not even sniff the NIT, which was a joke in its self. A 14 or 15 seed is the best to hope for this year.

Yep.

As usual, Rule is right on the money.

 

[bearly visible]

2 close losses and a loss that wasn't as bad as the score indicated to 3 pretty damn good teams, all on the the road, all without the best player in the league.

Are we happy? No. Are we satisfied? No. Were they bad losses. Absofuckinglylutely no!!

So, a 10-point loss is a close loss? And a one-point win at home on a shot made about 35-40% of the time against a nobody is a good win? Thanks for educating me.

If you watched the NAU game, and have a clue about the game of BB, you would see that our lack any semblance of an inside game will keep us from winning against teams who do have an inside game. Our offense is strictly a perimeter one. To have a great offense, you have to play an inside-out game, in which your inside players have to be a threat to post-up and score. Ours can not. So, our guards are never able to throw the ball low to an inside player, allow the defense to collapse, which allows the kick-out pass for easy three's or penetration. 90% of our passes are around the perimeter, and not inside.

We have plenty of good guards on this team, no doubt. But this is the weakest group of inside players I can ever remember at UM. And it will make us a very average team this season.

The title of this thread should be an indication of just how far the conference has sunken to from the days when it was a very strong conference. The Big Sky used to have 4-5 strong teams each year, and used to regularly beat major teams, even ranked teams. I remember when Montana beat two top-10 ranked teams, Oregon State with Mel Counts, and UDUB with George Irvine. Now, we celebrate a 10-point loss against a team ranked #67 in the country. Some of are too young to get it, others are too myopic. The fact is that both the conference, and the UM program, are shells of what they used to be.

 

[Potomac Griz]

2 close losses and a loss that wasn't as bad as the score indicated to 3 pretty damn good teams, all on the the road, all without the best player in the league.

Are we happy? No. Are we satisfied? No. Were they bad losses. Absofuckinglylutely no!!

So, a 10-point loss is a close loss? And a one-point win at home on a shot made about 35-40% of the time against a nobody is a good win? Thanks for educating me.

Sounds like you are going only on the final score and not based on the actual game... Many close games end up 10 point victories or losses after the final few minutes are over (fouling, last big run, etc). The SF game was a 5 point game with a little over 4 minutes to go. That's pretty damn close.

Also I don't see where EveretteGriz said anything about the San Diego game being a "good win", so not sure why you are going after him on that point...

 

[EverettGriz]

The title of this thread should be an indication of just how far the conference has sunken to from the days when it was a very strong conference

Ummm...that IS the point of this thread. You'll note we all agree.

The only place we differ is with fans of other bsc programs trying to saddle UM and Weber with the responsibility that the conference is down as far as it is. There's no doubt that UM and Weber are not as strong as a few of their past teams (believe me, I'm plenty old enough to recall the days you reference, and I also recall a lot of those Montana teams getting destroyed by far lesser teams than USF). But it's the remainder of the conference teams pulling the BSC down to the we're-barely-DI-level.

 

[SWeberCat02]

The conference is now 31st out of 33. Only two that are worse are the Independents and the Great West. And NAU just lost to BYU by 30, moving the conference's record vs D1 to 14-61.

 

[bearly visible]

The conference is now 31st out of 33. Only two that are worse are the Independents and the Great West. And NAU just lost to BYU by 30, moving the conference's record vs D1 to 14-61.

Right. But there are still Griz BB fans who think the Big Sky is as good a conference as it used to be, or that the Griz team is as good as Griz teams in the 1970s AND 1980s. No way! We have trouble beating NAU and Sac. State on the road, and trouble beating San Diego or South Dakota State at home. Griz teams from past decades used to go 11-2, or 10-3 in conference on a yearly basis.

 

[EverettGriz]

Wow, old-timer. A little selective rembrance going on there??

Griz conf records in the 70s:

6-8, 7-7, 7-7, 11-3, 13-1, 7-7, 6-8, 12-2, 7-7

Conf records in the 80s:
8-6, 11-3, 10-4, 9-5, 9-5, 10-4, 9-5, 8-6, 7-9, 11-5, 10-6


Yes, there are some great years there. There are also some very mediocre ones, and certainly it's impossible to say that the Griz went 11-2, 10-3 on a "yearly" basis. In fact, it'd be a stretch to say they did it "regularly". And trust me, I watched a LOT of those games, particularly in the 80s, and you're out of your mind if you don't believe there were many, many close games against lesser competition. I seem to recall the Griz needing a late hoop to beat Simon Fraser at home one year.

Yes, clearly the conference is not as good top to bottom, especially this year. But the Griz teams that have been on the floor the past 4-5 years are every bit as good as any of those teams from the 70s and 80s, including the LK teams (which never won a conference title or advanced to the Dance).

 

[bearly visible]

Wow, old-timer. A little selective rembrance going on there??

Griz conf records in the 70s:

6-8, 7-7, 7-7, 11-3, 13-1, 7-7, 6-8, 12-2, 7-7

Conf records in the 80s:
8-6, 11-3, 10-4, 9-5, 9-5, 10-4, 9-5, 8-6, 7-9, 11-5, 10-6


Yes, there are some great years there. There are also some very mediocre ones, and certainly it's impossible to say that the Griz went 11-2, 10-3 on a "yearly" basis. In fact, it'd be a stretch to say they did it "regularly". And trust me, I watched a LOT of those games, particularly in the 80s, and you're out of your mind if you don't believe there were many, many close games against lesser competition. I seem to recall the Griz needing a late hoop to beat Simon Fraser at home one year.

Yes, clearly the conference is not as good top to bottom, especially this year. But the Griz teams that have been on the floor the past 4-5 years are every bit as good as any of those teams from the 70s and 80s, including the LK teams (which never won a conference title or advanced to the Dance).

You have your opinion and I have mine. The Griz BB program became great in 1975 with Heathcote. It was joke before that. But if you look at the records from 1975 until 1990, we had 7 years of winning at least 10 games. And this was against teams like Nevada, Idaho, Boise State, Gonzaga. Big difference. Now we play five teams (NCU, PSU, SAc. St., NAU, EWU) who draw fewer than 500 fans to home games, play in glorified high school arenas, and have losing records most seasons, and are among the weakest teams in all of Division I basketball. I don't buy your allegation of being as good now.

The Big Sky is ranked near the bottom in conferences nationally, and we squeak out victories against teams with losing records. Not my idea of quality. I guess I am longing for the good ole days of playing strong competition and winning, or at least competing in close games.

 

[Agent G]

Like everyone else, I'd like to see the BSC be stronger. But it's like comparing apples to oranges when analyzing today's game and the success of the Griz over other D1 teams as compared to 10 and 20 years ago. So much has changed on the landscape of college basketball and within the various programs/conferences of all teams mentioned that it doesn't mean much now.

The bottom line is that the Big Sky is a low/mid to mid major conference that has to come a long way before it will potentially get a good seed in the NCAA tourney. Even though that's true, if BSC teams develop the right way throughout the season and get on a role at the right time, they will have a chance to knock someone off in the tourney, as we've seen with more and more mid major teams lately. While it's not probable, it's possible.

Just look at what SDSU did in beating NM shortly after barely beating UM in double OT (a game they should never have won). Anything can happen. It will be interesting to see how UM progresses, especially over the next 8-10 games.

 

[EverettGriz]

Wow, old-timer. A little selective rembrance going on there??

Griz conf records in the 70s:

6-8, 7-7, 7-7, 11-3, 13-1, 7-7, 6-8, 12-2, 7-7

Conf records in the 80s:
8-6, 11-3, 10-4, 9-5, 9-5, 10-4, 9-5, 8-6, 7-9, 11-5, 10-6


Yes, there are some great years there. There are also some very mediocre ones, and certainly it's impossible to say that the Griz went 11-2, 10-3 on a "yearly" basis. In fact, it'd be a stretch to say they did it "regularly". And trust me, I watched a LOT of those games, particularly in the 80s, and you're out of your mind if you don't believe there were many, many close games against lesser competition. I seem to recall the Griz needing a late hoop to beat Simon Fraser at home one year.

Yes, clearly the conference is not as good top to bottom, especially this year. But the Griz teams that have been on the floor the past 4-5 years are every bit as good as any of those teams from the 70s and 80s, including the LK teams (which never won a conference title or advanced to the Dance).

You have your opinion and I have mine. The Griz BB program became great in 1975 with Heathcote. It was joke before that. But if you look at the records from 1975 until 1990, we had 7 years of winning at least 10 games. And this was against teams like Nevada, Idaho, Boise State, Gonzaga. Big difference. Now we play five teams (NCU, PSU, SAc. St., NAU, EWU) who draw fewer than 500 fans to home games, play in glorified high school arenas, and have losing records most seasons, and are among the weakest teams in all of Division I basketball. I don't buy your allegation of being as good now.

The Big Sky is ranked near the bottom in conferences nationally, and we squeak out victories against teams with losing records. Not my idea of quality. I guess I am longing for the good ole days of playing strong competition and winning, or at least competing in close games.

And the current Griz have had 10 or more wins 7 of the last 8 seasons, and will certainly do so again this year.

Look, we all agree the BSC sucks. Yes, it was better before Idaho and Reno left. That's the point of the thread, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd love to see us get the hell out of the conference all together. I just believe that stating that the program is down simply because the conference is down is incongruent logic.

 

[JAKEweezy93]

heres a fact for u h8rs

the Big Sky has put a team in the march madness tourney EVERY year. if they are so shit than why do they always get at least one team in the best 64 when there are about 440 ncaa teams?

looks like ur stats aint worth a shit son

 

[bearly visible]

heres a fact for u h8rs

the Big Sky has put a team in the march madness tourney EVERY year. if they are so shit than why do they always get at least one team in the best 64 when there are about 440 ncaa teams?

looks like ur stats aint worth a shit son

At least one???? They have never had more than the automatic bid, which will be in jeopardy if the conference keeps sucking hind tit and sinking lower in the national rankings every year. Then we can be like Coastal Carolina, son. :lol:

 

[Potomac Griz]

Now we play five teams (NCU, PSU, SAc. St., NAU, EWU) who draw fewer than 500 fans to home games, play in glorified high school arenas, and have losing records most seasons, and are among the weakest teams in all of Division I basketball. I don't buy your allegation of being as good now.

You keep saying "fewer than 500 fans" for home games, yet the numbers just don't back up what you are saying..

UNC has had 1 home D1 game so far this year, and drew 1700 for it. The two naia or d2 teams they played they drew over 1100 for.

PSU drew 1500 for the Oregon State game at home, and did have bad attendance for the other two D1 home games (ISU and WSU). They drew 659 for ISU and 802 for Weber.

Sac drew 1269 for their game against UC Davis. They drew 523 against the Cats and 612 against the Griz. They did have 1 game where they drew under 500...492 for Cal Bakersfield. Even their two sub-d1 games drew over 500.

NAU drew 1800 against SHSU, 1200 against Loyola Marymount, and over 700 against MSU and 664 against the Griz. They also play in a very nice newly remodeled arena... hardly a "high school" gym as you keep calling it.

EWU has drawn anywhere from 600 to 1100 so far this year. Not one game below 500 for attendance.

Your argument about the Big Sky being weak is valid of course, but you really don't help your cause using statistics that aren't accurate, and calling NAU's gym a high school gym.

Do you think the team that beat Nevada was a weak team that couldn't stand up to the "good ol days" teams that frequently didn't make the NCAA tournament?

Really I think a lot of people who are remembering the good ol' days are remembering them as a lot more successful and awesome than they really were... the records that have been posted here do a pretty good job of showing that.

 

['68griz]

heres a fact for u h8rs

the Big Sky has put a team in the march madness tourney EVERY year. if they are so shit than why do they always get at least one team in the best 64 when there are about 440 ncaa teams?

looks like ur stats aint worth a shit son

How can you be so uninformed as NOT to know the Big Sky Conference gets an automatic bid each year, so of course one team always goes.

 

[bearly visible]

Now we play five teams (NCU, PSU, SAc. St., NAU, EWU) who draw fewer than 500 fans to home games, play in glorified high school arenas, and have losing records most seasons, and are among the weakest teams in all of Division I basketball. I don't buy your allegation of being as good now.

You keep saying "fewer than 500 fans" for home games, yet the numbers just don't back up what you are saying..

UNC has had 1 home D1 game so far this year, and drew 1700 for it. The two naia or d2 teams they played they drew over 1100 for.

PSU drew 1500 for the Oregon State game at home, and did have bad attendance for the other two D1 home games (ISU and WSU). They drew 659 for ISU and 802 for Weber.

Sac drew 1269 for their game against UC Davis. They drew 523 against the Cats and 612 against the Griz. They did have 1 game where they drew under 500...492 for Cal Bakersfield. Even their two sub-d1 games drew over 500.

NAU drew 1800 against SHSU, 1200 against Loyola Marymount, and over 700 against MSU and 664 against the Griz. They also play in a very nice newly remodeled arena... hardly a "high school" gym as you keep calling it.

EWU has drawn anywhere from 600 to 1100 so far this year. Not one game below 500 for attendance.

Your argument about the Big Sky being weak is valid of course, but you really don't help your cause using statistics that aren't accurate, and calling NAU's gym a high school gym.

Do you think the team that beat Nevada was a weak team that couldn't stand up to the "good ol days" teams that frequently didn't make the NCAA tournament?

Really I think a lot of people who are remembering the good ol' days are remembering them as a lot more successful and awesome than they really were... the records that have been posted here do a pretty good job of showing that.

Thanks for trying so hard to prove your point that 1100 fans is so much better than 500 fans. And, of course, you leave out the little fact that attendance is always embellished at these events. For instance, I have friend who attended the Sac. State game, and said that there was no way that there were as many fans there as was officially stated.

Then, you try to make a case saying that the teams of the 70s and 80s frequently did not even make the NCAA tournament. You are correct, but the reason was that the Big Sky usually had 5-6 tough teams, instead of Montana & Weber fighting it out nearly every year to see who gets in. I remember when Idaho State was very tough every year. One year in the 70s they had 4 starters play in the NBA. I can remember two of their names, 7-footer Steve Hayes, and 6'10" Jeff Cook. Now, ISU is a dog team. I will not buy for one minute that Griz BB, as well as the Big Sky Conference are even close to what they used to be. The national ranking of the Big Sky is all I need to know, plus watching the Griz eke out last second victories against teams they used to beat by 20.

 

[EverettGriz]

Again, incongruent logic.

But I'm done arguing about something so silly.

 

[Potomac Griz]

Thanks for trying so hard to prove your point that 1100 fans is so much better than 500 fans. And, of course, you leave out the little fact that attendance is always embellished at these events. For instance, I have friend who attended the Sac. State game, and said that there was no way that there were as many fans there as was officially stated.

When you make up statistics it calls into question the rest of your argument.

Then, you try to make a case saying that the teams of the 70s and 80s frequently did not even make the NCAA tournament. You are correct, but the reason was that the Big Sky usually had 5-6 tough teams, instead of Montana & Weber fighting it out nearly every year to see who gets in. I remember when Idaho State was very tough every year. One year in the 70s they had 4 starters play in the NBA. I can remember two of their names, 7-footer Steve Hayes, and 6'10" Jeff Cook. Now, ISU is a dog team. I will not buy for one minute that Griz BB, as well as the Big Sky Conference are even close to what they used to be. The national ranking of the Big Sky is all I need to know, plus watching the Griz eke out last second victories against teams they used to beat by 20.

How about the 1984-85 season when the Griz lost to 11-17 MSU in Bozeman? MSU was 4-10 in non-conference with losses to some pretty pathetic teams and only 2 d1 non conference wins (over independent EWU, and Loyola Marymount). The Griz were 22-8 that year (18-8 in D1 games), and lost to UCLA in the NIT 72-48.

Even good teams can lose or barely beat bad teams occasionally.

Look, no one is arguing with you that the Big Sky is bad compared to what it was back in the good ol' days. I too wish the Big Sky would have more than 2 consistently quality teams. When a big sky team like the Griz or Weber is very very good, their RPI is drug down by the multiple sub-250 RPI teams in the conference. Its sucks.

You claiming though that the very good recent Griz teams are no where near the level that they were back then though is something many of us here, including many of those who did follow basketball back in the good ol' days, will disagree with you on. We didn't blow ever shitty team out back then either, and had close games (including some losses) with some very sub-par teams, just like this year, and last year, and 2005-2006 when we beat Nevada in the tournament. It happens.