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

[bearly visible]

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.

I didn't make up stats, I generalized. You should get the point, without resorting to dredging up every official attendance record in the conference. I like to focus on the 40,000 foot perspective, instead of pointing out one game from the past in which we lost a game we should have won.

Tell me this. Name one quality win for the current team this season. Beating NAU and Sac. State on the road in very closely contested wins are not quality wins in my book. Both of these teams are horrible and among the worst Division I teams in the country. We lose at home to South Dakota State, and win in the last second against a very average San Diego team. Who else have we defeated that is even worth mentioning? I am not arguing for the sake of it, but I just do not agree that our program is anywhere close to what it used to be. For one, the competition we play now is nowhere near what it used to be. We actually used to get some great teams come to Missoula, like Arizona State, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Creighton, Minnesota, etc. When is the last time we played a Top 75 team in our house?

 

[Potomac Griz]

I didn't make up stats, I generalized. You should get the point, without resorting to dredging up every official attendance record in the conference. I like to focus on the 40,000 foot perspective, instead of pointing out one game from the past in which we lost a game we should have won.

When your generalization is inaccurate you should probably expect someone to point that out, or maybe not make inaccurate generalizations :thumb:

I pointed out only one game, but I'm 100% sure I could find several other examples... You seem to have missed the point completely. The point was, good teams can sometimes play like crap against bad opponents, or bad opponents can sometimes play great against good teams and make it a close game.

Tell me this. Name one quality win for the current team this season. Beating NAU and Sac. State on the road in very closely contested wins are not quality wins in my book. Both of these teams are horrible and among the worst Division I teams in the country. We lose at home to South Dakota State, and win in the last second against a very average San Diego team. Who else have we defeated that is even worth mentioning? I am not arguing for the sake of it, but I just do not agree that our program is anywhere close to what it used to be. For one, the competition we play now is nowhere near what it used to be. We actually used to get some great teams come to Missoula, like Arizona State, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Creighton, Minnesota, etc. When is the last time we played a Top 75 team in our house?

You are right that this team doesn't have a "quality" win yet this season. Again, no one is arguing with you on that...

South Dakota State is a top 100 team (83) and would have been a quality win had we been able to pull it off.

When did we last play a Top 75 team in our house? Well, South Dakota State was pretty close this year (83). And I guess I could look AALLLLLL the way back to ancient times.... last year. We played #36 Long Beach State here, and we played #67 Nevada here. We also played #71 Weber here. So that's three top 75 teams in our home.

Sure I'd like to see us draw some other good teams to play here in Missoula...and this year's schedule was rather underwhelming. That in part can be blamed on the cluster fuck that is the Big Sky conference though, since it limits the number of non-conference games we can schedule with a 20 game conference season, and instead fills our schedule with such juggernauts as #345 North Dakota, and 4 other sub 300 teams... and sprinkle in 3 other sub 200 teams and we got one hell of a conference! :roll:

As I said, I agree that the Big Sky is horrible... I'm just saying that the recent Griz teams have been pretty damn impressive, and their success shouldn't be dismissed because of the shitty conference we are in. This years team will only get better now that Cherry is back, and even with our complete lack of an inside game, I still see us being a good team this year.

 

[bearly visible]

I didn't make up stats, I generalized. You should get the point, without resorting to dredging up every official attendance record in the conference. I like to focus on the 40,000 foot perspective, instead of pointing out one game from the past in which we lost a game we should have won.

When your generalization is inaccurate you should probably expect someone to point that out, or maybe not make inaccurate generalizations :thumb:

I pointed out only one game, but I'm 100% sure I could find several other examples... You seem to have missed the point completely. The point was, good teams can sometimes play like crap against bad opponents, or bad opponents can sometimes play great against good teams and make it a close game.

Tell me this. Name one quality win for the current team this season. Beating NAU and Sac. State on the road in very closely contested wins are not quality wins in my book. Both of these teams are horrible and among the worst Division I teams in the country. We lose at home to South Dakota State, and win in the last second against a very average San Diego team. Who else have we defeated that is even worth mentioning? I am not arguing for the sake of it, but I just do not agree that our program is anywhere close to what it used to be. For one, the competition we play now is nowhere near what it used to be. We actually used to get some great teams come to Missoula, like Arizona State, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Creighton, Minnesota, etc. When is the last time we played a Top 75 team in our house?

You are right that this team doesn't have a "quality" win yet this season. Again, no one is arguing with you on that...

South Dakota State is a top 100 team (83) and would have been a quality win had we been able to pull it off.

When did we last play a Top 75 team in our house? Well, South Dakota State was pretty close this year (83). And I guess I could look AALLLLLL the way back to ancient times.... last year. We played #36 Long Beach State here, and we played #67 Nevada here. We also played #71 Weber here. So that's three top 75 teams in our home.

Sure I'd like to see us draw some other good teams to play here in Missoula...and this year's schedule was rather underwhelming. That in part can be blamed on the cluster f*** that is the Big Sky conference though, since it limits the number of non-conference games we can schedule with a 20 game conference season, and instead fills our schedule with such juggernauts as #345 North Dakota, and 4 other sub 300 teams... and sprinkle in 3 other sub 200 teams and we got one hell of a conference! :roll:

As I said, I agree that the Big Sky is horrible... I'm just saying that the recent Griz teams have been pretty damn impressive, and their success shouldn't be dismissed because of the shitty conference we are in. This years team will only get better now that Cherry is back, and even with our complete lack of an inside game, I still see us being a good team this year.

So, where are the Griz ranked nationally? I assure you that many of the previous Griz teams during the decades I spoke about were ranked in the Top 50. In fact, under coaches like Heathcote, Brandenburg, and Monty, we were often ranked in the Top 5 nationally in team defense.

We have very good guards, and but the worst inside game I can ever remember at Montana. We get outboarded every game, and very points from our bigs. If I were coaching, I would play a 3-guard up-tempo offense, to get the best talent on the floor. Long Beach had great success last year doing this. Tinkle seems to be stuck in a rut of trying to play a traditional offense without the players to do it.

 

[EverettGriz]

It's not difficult at all to make the claim -- based on NCAA appearances, a tournament victory, a few near misses in the tournament, victories over ranked and storied programs like Stanford and UCLA, games against teams like Duke, and so on -- that the last 6-7 years have been the most successful in the program's history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtgrizrule]

Christ sakes, today's Big Sky and NCAA basketball nationally is so different and impossible to compare.

Why were the GRIZ and Big Sky teams better on a national level then? Pretty simple it was not about the money and a much more even/fair system than it is today!!!

Today it is almost impossible to get big names to come play at mid level and smaller schools. Hell we cannot even get the likes of Gonzaga and St Mary's to come in these days. Our attendance does not allow us to pay the $$$ needed for those games. Also it is too risky for other team's rpi's come tournament selection time. It is no longer about competitive balance. NCAA athletics is now about process of elimination and having defined lines of what level of program/school everyone is.

Greed has already ruined NCAA football, and it is gradually doing the same to NCAA basketball. Seriously the factors in today's NCAA athletics (not only basketball) is much different and impossible to compare to the 60's through the 90's. Wayne actually does what is best for the GRIZ, prepares his team to win the Big Sky tournament, in order to get a small share of the pie that is the terrible NCAA pie.

 

[mtgrizrule]

It's not difficult at all to make the claim -- based on NCAA appearances, a tournament victory, a few near misses in the tournament, victories over ranked and storied programs like Stanford and UCLA, games against teams like Duke, and so on -- that the last 6-7 years have been the most successful in the program's history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We beat Washington too. The GRIZ got homered big time in that game, but out played the Huskies at UW. AS far as I am concerned, The GRIZ won that game.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Everett Griz is correct. Since 2002, Montana has won the Big Sky Conference Championship four times -- which adds up to four NCAA appearances & one win -- placed second once, and hosted a CIT game in the post-season as well. No other 10-year Griz stretch comes close. No other Big Sky team comes close during this decade.

I've attended 90% of Montana's home games since the late 1950s & have watched some great Griz teams over the years & perhaps it can be argued that 4-5 of those teams were as good (maybe better) than any from the past decade. But the cumulative record speaks for itself. Wayne Tinkle is one NCAA victory shy of being far and away the single most successful coach in Montana history.

Naysayers on this thread could do themselves a favor by attending all (not just a couple) of Montana's games and just try to enjoy a team (yes, THIS year's Griz) that'll compete until the final buzzer sounds!

 

[Ursa Major]

Everett Griz is correct. Since 2002, Montana has won the Big Sky Conference Championship four times -- which adds up to four NCAA appearances & one win -- placed second once, and hosted a CIT game in the post-season as well. No other 10-year Griz stretch comes close. No other Big Sky team comes close during this decade.

I've attended 90% of Montana's home games since the late 1950s & have watched some great Griz teams over the years & perhaps it can be argued that 4-5 of those teams were as good (maybe better) than any from the past decade. But the cumulative record speaks for itself. Wayne Tinkle is one NCAA victory shy of being far and away the single most successful coach in Montana history.

Naysayers on this thread could do themselves a favor by attending all (not just a couple) of Montana's games and just try to enjoy a team (yes, THIS year's Griz) that'll compete until the final buzzer sounds!

Good Post!

 

[bearly visible]

Christ sakes, today's Big Sky and NCAA basketball nationally is so different and impossible to compare.

Why were the GRIZ and Big Sky teams better on a national level then? Pretty simple it was not about the money and a much more even/fair system than it is today!!!

Today it is almost impossible to get big names to come play at mid level and smaller schools. Hell we cannot even get the likes of Gonzaga and St Mary's to come in these days. Our attendance does not allow us to pay the $$$ needed for those games. Also it is too risky for other team's rpi's come tournament selection time. It is no longer about competitive balance. NCAA athletics is now about process of elimination and having defined lines of what level of program/school everyone is.

Greed has already ruined NCAA football, and it is gradually doing the same to NCAA basketball. Seriously the factors in today's NCAA athletics (not only basketball) is much different and impossible to compare to the 60's through the 90's. Wayne actually does what is best for the GRIZ, prepares his team to win the Big Sky tournament, in order to get a small share of the pie that is the terrible NCAA pie.

I am not a naysayer. I just don't agree with the posters who think our current or recent teams could compete in the old Big Sky Conferences. They would finish in the middle of the pack. This post pretty much explains and supports why I say this. Thanks grizrule for making it. You don't have to watch every game to be able to make a good observation. Do you have to watch every Miami Heat game to know that they are the class of the NBA?

 

[mtgrizrule]

I will agree the conference is dragged down by bad teams. To say recent teams could not compete with older teams, or older teams are better than recent teams, is impossible to know for sure.

It is a way different game these days and way too many factors to compare. I am proud of GRIZ Basketball, past and present. I am proud of what Wayne Tinkle has done for the GRIZ. I am very happy Wayne has proven so many wrong. He is one hell of a coach and person.

 

[bearly visible]

I will agree the conference is dragged down by bad teams. To say recent teams could not compete with older teams, or older teams are better than recent teams, is impossible to know for sure.

It is a way different game these days and way too many factors to compare. I am proud of GRIZ Basketball, past and present. I am proud of what Wayne Tinkle has done for the GRIZ. I am very happy Wayne has proven so many wrong. He is one hell of a coach and person.

I love Tinks too, and am a huge Griz BB fan. I just think that the Big Sky conference has been weakened so much over the years by losing too many good teams, and replacing them with pretenders, that even Wayne has a tougher time recruiting the caliber of players we used to get to UM now. These recruits are not dumb. They rank the strength of the conferences from teams who are recruiting them, and it effects their decisions. Good high school players want to play in a competitive conference, with as much TV time as possible, and play a solid non-conference schedule, want to play in the dance, and want as much national exposure as they can get. The Big Sky falls flat on its ass in all of these areas except getting to the dance.

Bottom line is, there are only so many Division I caliber players out there, and everyone wants the same players, so it comes down to which programs can offer the most to a recruit.

Just my opinion.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Tinks is doing better at recruiting than we give him credit then. We have a few players that belong in the MWC, and Pac 12.

 

[Agent G]

All players would love to play in front of huge crowds and on TV. If these players are realistic and honest with themselves, they should know that a large percentage of them fall into the mid-major category. While they may have opportunities from some higher level programs, many of those players run the risk of sitting the bench on those teams and not getting much pt.

If I were in that situation, I'd much rather be on a team giving me a significant chance to play and make an impact, as opposed to handing water and towels to the players getting all the pt for 3-4 years, only to hope for some garbage time. Nobody cares about or remembers the bench warmers at Duke, North Carolina, KY, etc. And I'd be very surprised if guys living on the benches of those teams would honestly say they wouldn't have traded that experience for being a factor playing on a lower level team.

Lillard did a great thing for players like this that are on the bubble between the high-major and mid-major teams. He proved that a player can go to a mid-major team in a conference in which only the tourney champ will get to the dance, and that if you play the right way and work hard in the off-season, you can become a ligit NBA player. Lillard is a great athlete and has great bball IQ. He made the most of his opportunities and it may have worked out better for him being at Weber State than if he had been on a high-major team. He wouldn't have been spot-lighted and allowed to be the primary leader on a team loaded with great talent.

Considering this, any mid-major programs, like Weber St and UM, who have a solid track record of getting to the dance by way of winning their conf tourneys, have a pretty good chance of getting better and better players. I think this is actually the case with the recruiting classes of these teams the last few years. As more and more top talent are one and done at the top programs, and as mid-major teams continue to have success, I think we'll see better talent filtering down.

When comparing teams/opportunities players have a lot to consider...academics, social life, living arrangements, closeness to home, etc, etc. When it comes to considering teams and the strength of the conference they are in, I believe more weight is put into whether or not that team has a good chance of getting to the tourney at all, regardless of the seed...and if the player feels they have a good chance of being an impact player sooner than later, they have a good chance of choosing that team.

While many of the teams in the BSC may not be strong, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them make waves during conference play. It's definitely not a slam dunk for Weber and UM. The more competitive the BSC becomes within itself, giving more and more teams the chance to play in the NCAA tourney, I think the conference will improve. But it will take time and hopefully things don't get bad enough for the BSC to lose the automatic bid. That would hurt more than anything. With conferences like the Big East breaking apart, hopefully that will insulate the BSC from that possibility and not as many at-large teams will get into the tourney as in the past.

 

[Spanky]

Agent....if a coach from a higher level program recruits a youngster, he is aware of the potential of the student-athlete. He may warm the bench at first, but with good coaching and the team competing against talented teams, the youngster will develop and begin to play more. I would always encourage the youngster to take a shot at playing for the school with a schedule of more talented opponents if he/she has a choice.

 

[Potomac Griz]

So, where are the Griz ranked nationally? I assure you that many of the previous Griz teams during the decades I spoke about were ranked in the Top 50.

Which years were the Griz ranked in the top 50? The 74-75 season possibly? I don't have the strength of schedule or ranking info on that season, but they were 21-8 and very good obviously. If you look at the strength of schedule for the Griz teams in the 80s I'm afraid there's no way any of those teams were in the top 50, at least not for long

Even the 84-85 season when we went 22-8 the SOS was 172nd out of 282...not exactly a strong strength of schedule, and very unlikely the Griz were in the top 50 very often with that type of SOS.

In fact, under coaches like Heathcote, Brandenburg, and Monty, we were often ranked in the Top 5 nationally in team defense.

And right now the Griz under Tinkle are in the top 10 for 3pt %, top 20 for FT%. As you said this team has very good guards and not a lot of post presence. They've also been playing without Cherry until recently, so the early struggles were kind of expected.

We have very good guards, and but the worst inside game I can ever remember at Montana. We get outboarded every game, and very points from our bigs. If I were coaching, I would play a 3-guard up-tempo offense, to get the best talent on the floor. Long Beach had great success last year doing this. Tinkle seems to be stuck in a rut of trying to play a traditional offense without the players to do it.

You must not have seen the games where Tinkle is playing 3 guards out there with no Hutch or Martin. In fact he goes with the smaller lineup a LOT out there for those exact reasons. The up tempo game will come a lot easier with Cherry back.

 

[Agent G]

Agent....if a coach from a higher level program recruits a youngster, he is aware of the potential of the student-athlete. He may warm the bench at first, but with good coaching and the team competing against talented teams, the youngster will develop and begin to play more. I would always encourage the youngster to take a shot at playing for the school with a schedule of more talented opponents if he/she has a choice.

You're right that coaches from higher level programs recruit kids that they feel can help the program. However, many times they are going for a good number of players that may not be their top choice simply because they never know who they'll get or not...it's a numbers game. In many cases the coach knows the player will have to develop quite a bit before they can contribute, knowing that there's a chance the kid may not get to the level they need to be. This happens on all teams and at all levels. Just look at the number of players that have come and gone on the Griz team over the last few years that didn't get much playing time. There are so many factors involved.

My point is that players and the the support group around them need to be realistic and going to the highest level team that may be recruiting them may not necessarily be the best for them. Also, going to a team that has the shot at playing more talented opponents won't always work out, especially if the team the kid chooses is a cellar dweller in that conference. He might get a lot of pt in that situation, but it would be pretty frustrating getting pounded night after night.

I'd rather be on a good program that has a history of doing well in a conference with a good chance of getting to the NCAA tourney than going to an average to below average team in a tougher conference with better talent. It would be much easier sitting the bench and working your butt off to get pt in the future on one of those teams than on one that loses most of the time. This is why I think teams like UM and Weber, that are in a conference that's not as strong as we'd like, have a good chance to continue getting some talented players.

 

[Spanky]

Agent....you have pointed out that there are many factors involved in the decision process..conference, coach, academics, location. However, if the youth has God given talent, I would always support him/her going to the school in a strong conference where he/she has the opportunity to develop the talent by playing against those with superior talent on a regular basis. We both know this is a difficult process for the student-athlete, parents and high school coaches and the final decision regarding the chosen school doesn't always work out. Finally, I am of the opinion that Wayne Tinkle is an excellent coach and recruiter....I simply don't think the Big Sky is a quality conference.

 

[mtgrizrule]

IT depends on the kid and the family. I do know quite a few kids who have chosen a smaller conference with good programs over tougher conferences and more competition. In today's age, if you work hard and have talent, professional sports leagues/teams will know who you are.

Lillard and Cherry are helping bring attention to the conference. 3 to 4 years of being a star in a smaller conference and the assurance of handling the pressure more often certainly is better than contributing for 1 or 2 years at larger program. Also I would want my kid playing for a coach that could develop my son's ability on the court to reach potential, and be in a family environment. Tinkle teaches the game well, develops talent well, and is amongst the best in having a family environment. It would be tough for parent and recruit to say "No" to Wayne, the person. Then again, all this likely belongs in a separate thread.

As for the BSC, it sucks this year. Fortunately, there are quite a few good young players that are Freshman, and Sophomores. I hope those talents remain in the conference. In a few years the conference will be better, maybe get to the high teens to low 20's in conference ratings.