Weber State

[mtgrizrule]

As a NCAA Basketball, Big Sky Conference, and GRIZ fan, I wanted to tell Weber State how proud I am of them, despite the loss to AZ. There are not many team in the nation who can make it respectful against that AZ team. Weber State out played AZ the 2nd half, and actually showed they belonged in the tournament.

As I was watching the game, I thought of the GRIZ tournament games against Washington and Boston College. In each of those games those teams had a 5 to 10 minute period which separated them from the GRIZ. For Weber State, that was Arizona's 1st half. It took some time for Weber State to adjust to facing better players, and more athleticism.

Weber State you guys did the conference proud. It is nice to end on a higher note. I hope every team in the conference uses this game as an example that Big Sky Conference teams are capable of completing at a higher level.

I for one expect both Weber State and Montana to be better next season despite a few key personnel losses for each team from graduation. We will miss Kareem's versatility. Fortunately we have a lot of experience returning and the addition of Breunig will be huge for the GRIZ post struggles. Speaking of posts, Weber State loses a good one in Tresnak, but they reload not rebuild.

Here is to a great 2014/2015 season for each program. :thumb:

 

[AZGrizFan]

So, it would appear that a partial solution would be to play UP in every OOC game so that the players DO get the experience of playing bigger, faster players and it doesn't maybe take a half of tournament basketball to get "adjusted"....Honestly, if the BSC champ went 2-10 in OOC games, but was better prepped then we might get an occasional victory in the tourney.

 

[mtgrizrule]

So, it would appear that a partial solution would be to play UP in every OOC game so that the players DO get the experience of playing bigger, faster players and it doesn't maybe take a half of tournament basketball to get "adjusted"....Honestly, if the BSC champ went 2-10 in OOC games, but was better prepped then we might get an occasional victory in the tourney.

My friend and I were just saying that too. I don't expect every OOC to be that tough but at least 3 to 4 OOC games against bigger conferences per team each year. Teams of all levels do need games against team to help develop and fine tune things.

 

[get'em_griz]

So, it would appear that a partial solution would be to play UP in every OOC game so that the players DO get the experience of playing bigger, faster players and it doesn't maybe take a half of tournament basketball to get "adjusted"....Honestly, if the BSC champ went 2-10 in OOC games, but was better prepped then we might get an occasional victory in the tourney.

My friend and I were just saying that too. I don't expect every OOC to be that tough but at least 3 to 4 OOC games against bigger conferences per team each year. Teams of all levels do need games against team to help develop and fine tune things.

And think how much playing these better teams would benefit the Griz come conference play. We need more of those big games.

 

[DoubleNicks]

So, it would appear that a partial solution would be to play UP in every OOC game so that the players DO get the experience of playing bigger, faster players and it doesn't maybe take a half of tournament basketball to get "adjusted"....Honestly, if the BSC champ went 2-10 in OOC games, but was better prepped then we might get an occasional victory in the tourney.

The problem with all the teams having 10 losses before conference even starts means that the BSC rep would almost certainly be given a 15 or 16 seed (which are almost guaranteed defeats compared to being given a 12-14 seed), even if they went undefeated in the BSC. Plus, all that prep is basically lost when a team has to play over 2/3 of the season against teams with RPIs above 200 in the bloated BSC. A BSC team is just not going to out-prep a team from a major conference that is playing top notch teams every week instead of just 4 times at the very beginning of the season.

No, the solution to doing well in the tourney is to get a better seed (10-14 range) and usually a better matchup. To do that you have to have wins to have better RPIs. Sure, strength of schedule is important but a team can schedule winnable games that still boost SOS. BSC teams need to beat the San Francisco and Hawaii types of teams. They need to stop playing perennial powerhouses and beat quality WCC, MWC, and Big West teams.

Well, that or split the conference into divisions so that there are less conference matchups and more chances to play OOC later in the season (I wish they still had the bracketbusters). :lol: Or just get out of the BSC for men's basketball.

 

[DoubleNicks]

Oh, and adding Idaho next year is only going to make things worse if everybody plays everyone else in conference twice. For each BSC matchup, the conference has to endure a guaranteed loss to the BSC's RPI (instead of each team having a chance at a win if playing OOC). So, if the BSC goes to 22 conference games next year that means an additional 22 guaranteed losses to the conference.

 

[AZGrizFan]

So, it would appear that a partial solution would be to play UP in every OOC game so that the players DO get the experience of playing bigger, faster players and it doesn't maybe take a half of tournament basketball to get "adjusted"....Honestly, if the BSC champ went 2-10 in OOC games, but was better prepped then we might get an occasional victory in the tourney.

The problem with all the teams having 10 losses before conference even starts means that the BSC rep would almost certainly be given a 15 or 16 seed (which are almost guaranteed defeats compared to being given a 12-14 seed), even if they went undefeated in the BSC. Plus, all that prep is basically lost when a team has to play over 2/3 of the season against teams with RPIs above 200 in the bloated BSC. A BSC team is just not going to out-prep a team from a major conference that is playing top notch teams every week instead of just 4 times at the very beginning of the season.

No, the solution to doing well in the tourney is to get a better seed (10-14 range) and usually a better matchup. To do that you have to have wins to have better RPIs. Sure, strength of schedule is important but a team can schedule winnable games that still boost SOS. BSC teams need to beat the San Francisco and Hawaii types of teams. They need to stop playing perennial powerhouses and beat quality WCC, MWC, and Big West teams.

Well, that or split the conference into divisions so that there are less conference matchups and more chances to play OOC later in the season (I wish they still had the bracketbusters). :lol: Or just get out of the BSC for men's basketball.

Understood, but Montana used EXACTLY your philosophy the past two years and got absolutely obliterated as a 12 and a 13 seed. So....

 

[Mr. Greenjeans]

So, it would appear that a partial solution would be to play UP in every OOC game so that the players DO get the experience of playing bigger, faster players and it doesn't maybe take a half of tournament basketball to get "adjusted"....Honestly, if the BSC champ went 2-10 in OOC games, but was better prepped then we might get an occasional victory in the tourney.

The problem with all the teams having 10 losses before conference even starts means that the BSC rep would almost certainly be given a 15 or 16 seed (which are almost guaranteed defeats compared to being given a 12-14 seed), even if they went undefeated in the BSC. Plus, all that prep is basically lost when a team has to play over 2/3 of the season against teams with RPIs above 200 in the bloated BSC. A BSC team is just not going to out-prep a team from a major conference that is playing top notch teams every week instead of just 4 times at the very beginning of the season.

No, the solution to doing well in the tourney is to get a better seed (10-14 range) and usually a better matchup. To do that you have to have wins to have better RPIs. Sure, strength of schedule is important but a team can schedule winnable games that still boost SOS. BSC teams need to beat the San Francisco and Hawaii types of teams. They need to stop playing perennial powerhouses and beat quality WCC, MWC, and Big West teams.

Well, that or split the conference into divisions so that there are less conference matchups and more chances to play OOC later in the season (I wish they still had the bracketbusters). :lol: Or just get out of the BSC for men's basketball.

It's tough for Big Sky teams to do so whether you play a split schedule or not. Conferences like the Big West won't schedule home and homes when they can play money games against more notable competition. Hard to burnish your RPI when you don't compete on a level playing field.That's life in college hoops...It's pretty amazing that Gonzaga has had the success that they have had given their situation.

 

[Potomac Griz]

Seems like it wasn't too long ago that we got Stanford, Colorado State, Oregon State, and even Gonzaga to play here in Missoula every once in a while. With us soon having 22 conference games having a good non-conference schedule is going to be even more difficult to put together, and home D1 non-conf games are going to become even more rare.

The past 2 years we've had 2 home non-conference D1 games each year. That sucks and makes for an incredibly boring home non-conference schedule. With it going up to 22 conference games are we going to start seeing 1 home D1 non-conference game a year now?

2013-2014: 7 (2 home, 5 road)
2012-2013: 7 (2 home, 5 road)
2011-2012: 11 (6 home, 5 road)
2010-2011: 11 (4 home, 7 road)
2009-2010: 10 (5 home, 5 road)
2008-2009: 11 (5 home, 6 road)
2007-2008: 11 (5 home, 6 road)
2006-2007: 12 (5 home, 7 road)
2005-2006: 11 (5 home, 6 road)
2004-2005: 11 (4 home, 7 road)

The Big Sigh crossed over the line into ridiculous territory a while ago I'm afraid... and now they push even further into that land of insanity making it so we'll have 22 conference games uke:

Sure a ton of conference games is great and all when you have a good conference like the Pac-12 (they only play 18 conference games btw), but when your conference is a bottom dweller all that does is kill the RPI of any decent team in the conference and make sure they get a shitty seed.

I just checked... only 1 other conference plays 20 conference games (the MAAC). So once we go up to 22 we'll be the only one with that many conference games. All other conferences, even those with tons more members, are at 18 or fewer.

 

[Silvertip]

There is no escape for a UM, playing its annual basement level RPI schedule, as long as it remains in the Big Sky. The only answer is GETTING OUT!...even if (shudder) it requires going independent for a spell. Gonzaga's 6,000 seat McCarthy Center hosted games this season with Colorado State and Washington State plus the full slate of WCC teams which are infinitely better overall than the BSC.On the road they played West Virginia, Kansas State, Dayton and Arkansas...Folks have to surrender their misplaced delusions that the Griz can ever improve their lot in the NCAA's, no matter how much they themselves improve, without first dumping the albatross hanging around their necks that is the BSC crowd.

You're known by the company you keep...particularly by the selection committee :!:

 

[SWeberCat02]

The conference has already decided they will go to an 18 game conference schedule beginning next season.

 

[Potomac Griz]

The conference has already decided they will go to an 18 game conference schedule beginning next season.

That's good news at least. Was that news somewhere on the bigsky conference website? Having trouble finding mention of it.

Even with that we still have the issue of the 18 (or however many we play) games dragging down good teams. This year it wasn't much of a problem since none of the teams in the Big Sky really deserved anything more than a 16 seed, but previous years it's definitely hurt.

We had an AD here a while ago who seemed to actually have some interest in the basketball program and trying to maybe become the next Gonzaga. If I remember right he was often ridiculed by some "fans" for having the goal of the Griz BB team getting to the sweet 16. It makes me wonder if the athletic department still gave a rats ass about the basketball program like he seemed to, if we'd actually serious look at other conferences for basketball.

I worry that some year Weber, who is more a basketball school of course, will step back and look at the Big Sky and say "WTF?!" then bail. Wouldn't this conference just be great if Weber bailed in Basketball for a conference that didn't destroy their RPI every year...

 

[Hammer]

The conference has already decided they will go to an 18 game conference schedule beginning next season.

That's good news at least. Was that news somewhere on the bigsky conference website? Having trouble finding mention of it.

Even with that we still have the issue of the 18 (or however many we play) games dragging down good teams. This year it wasn't much of a problem since none of the teams in the Big Sky really deserved anything more than a 16 seed, but previous years it's definitely hurt.

We had an AD here a while ago who seemed to actually have some interest in the basketball program and trying to maybe become the next Gonzaga. If I remember right he was often ridiculed by some "fans" for having the goal of the Griz BB team getting to the sweet 16. It makes me wonder if the athletic department still gave a rats ass about the basketball program like he seemed to, if we'd actually serious look at other conferences for basketball.

I worry that some year Weber, who is more a basketball school of course, will step back and look at the Big Sky and say "WTF?!" then bail. Wouldn't this conference just be great if Weber bailed in Basketball for a conference that didn't destroy their RPI every year...

is this the same Weber team that lost 6 conf games this year or a different one??

 

[Potomac Griz]

is this the same Weber team that lost 6 conf games this year or a different one??

I was talking about more than just this year. Weber has the same problem the Griz do in this conference... If we have a good season our RPI gets dragged down during the conference season. Eventually if Weber wants to move up in the mid major world they may start looking for other conferences. That's something I wish the Griz would do for basketball too.

When your conference is typically loaded with sub 250 RPI teams like the Big Sky it kills your RPI over the conference season. Drop a game to a conference foe due to having an off game and your RPI plummets.

Look at some of the conference options out there for a team like Montana and Weber, and then compare them to the Big Sky. The Big Sky is almost always the bottom dweller of the western-ish conferences. It's pretty bad and not far fetched to think that a team like Weber who is typically at the top of the Big Sky might start feeling like they've out grown this conference for basketball.

 

[Potomac Griz]

To illustrate my point about how bad the Big Sky has been lately here are how conferences in the west ranked over the past 10 years. I'm including the Sun Belt since they had Denver in it for a while, and because people love to make fun of the Sun Belt and WAC over here The Mid-Continet conference is also included (then later the Summit) since it includes the Dakota State schools and Southern Utah initially.

These rankings are from realtimerpi.com which ranks all 32 (including independent) conferences.

2003-2004:
# 7 Mountain West
# 9 Pac-10
#10 WAC
#12 WCC
#17 Sun Belt
#18 Big West
#20 Mid-Continent
#23 Big Sky

2004-2005:
# 4 Pac-10
# 7 WCC
#11 Mountain West
#12 Sun Belt
#14 WAC
#17 Big West
#24 Mid-Continent
#29 Big Sky

2005-2006:
# 7 Pac-10
# 8 Mountain West
# 9 WAC
#12 WCC
#17 Big Sky (HOLY SHIT WE BEAT THE SUN BELT, MIDCO AND BIG WEST!!!)
#18 Sun Belt
#23 Big West
#29 Mid-Continent

2006-2007:
# 3 Pac-10
# 8 Mountain West
# 9 WAC
#14 WCC
#16 Big West
#20 Sun Belt
#22 Mid-Continent
#24 Big Sky (dammit...back down we go...)

2007-2008:
# 4 Pac-10
# 9 Mountain West
#14 Sun Belt
#15 WCC
#19 Big West
#21 WAC
#22 Summit
#25 Big Sky

2008-2009:
# 5 Pac-10
# 7 Mountain West
#11 WAC
#15 WCC
#17 Sun Belt
#18 Big West
#24 Big Sky
#26 Summit

2009-2010:
# 6 Mountain West
# 8 Pac-10
#10 WAC
#13 WCC
#18 Big Sky (HELL YES! We are movin' on UP!)
#19 Big West
#21 Sun Belt
#23 Summit

2010-2011:
# 4 Mountain West
# 7 Pac-10
#13 WAC
#14 WCC
#21 Summit
#23 Sun Belt
#24 Big Sky (WTF...wrong direction, I said we are movin' UP!)
#26 Big West

2011-2012:
# 5 Mountain West
#10 Pac-12
#11 WCC
#12 WAC
#16 Summit
#19 Sun Belt
#25 Big Sky (Seriously guys... UP... ^^^ That way!)
#26 Big West

2012-2013:
# 1 Mountain West
# 6 Pac-12
#10 WCC
#13 WAC
#15 Sun Belt
#19 Summit
#21 Big West
#28 Big Sky (God dammit..nevermind...)

2013-2014:
# 3 Pac-12
# 9 WCC
#10 Mountain West
#17 Summit
#19 Sun Belt
#21 WAC
#22 Big West
#25 Big Sky

 

[first11]

So far the zags are wetting their pants versus the zona cats..


Weber did well in their game.....b dogs not so much

 

[grizindabox]

So far the zags are wetting their pants versus the zona cats..


Weber did well in their game.....b dogs not so much

So are you going sell everyone that Weber is better than Gonzaga?

 

[bengal81]

To illustrate my point about how bad the Big Sky has been lately here are how conferences in the west ranked over the past 10 years. I'm including the Sun Belt since they had Denver in it for a while, and because people love to make fun of the Sun Belt and WAC over here The Mid-Continet conference is also included (then later the Summit) since it includes the Dakota State schools and Southern Utah initially.''


So what you're telling me is that over the past 10 years, the Big Sky's median RPI is 24 -- and the league was 25th this year, which is just about par for the course. So I'd say any year where the league finishes higher than 24th in collective RPI is a "good year" for the conference.

I did a google search and couldn't find any numbers for the league back in the 1980s and 90s, so I honestly don't know if we're any better or worse off than we were back then. But here are some theories about why we aren't better than 24th, and why we probably won't be in the near future:

1. There are now 349 D-1 teams. Back in the 1970s, when a team like Idaho State was beating UCLA and going to the final eight, there were about 180 D-1 teams. Recruiting was still regional (why Idaho State was able to keep 6-11 Steve Hayes home in the 1970s; today he'd be snapped up by a PAC 10 program, or a Mountain West, at the very least). There were more D-1 players available to fewer programs.

2. The Big Sky replaced decent programs like Reno, Boise State and Idaho with schools like Portland State, UNC and Sac State, who have lousy facilities, no history and little fan support.

3. The absolute proliferation of televised basketball means small-time ("mid-major," if you will) college basketball has to compete with dozens of televised NBA and major college games every single night. College basketball games are simply no longer a "happening" in small markets (a lot of high schools have experienced the same problem), because you can watch the pros or the big boys every night.

4. The Big Sky puts no investment in basketball. What is the last time a Big Sky school built a new basketball arena? Probably Weber in the 1970s. Sac and PSU have talked a lot about new facilities/and or major renovations, but neither is close to breaking ground, because they haven't raised the necessary funding.

5. Non-conference scheduling has gotten almost impossible for Big Sky teams. In the 1980s, I used to watch teams like USC, Gonzaga and Washington State play in Pocatello. The huge flush of television money to large conference schools now means those schools can "buy" themselves 7 or 8 home non-conference games a year, and they will never darken a Big Sky arena's doors again. Most Big Sky schools, by contrast, HAVE to play 3 or 4 big money guarantee games a season to pay the bills. That leaves them with a couple of non-D1 schools and one or two mid-majors as their options for non-conference schedules. This kills RPI for the entire league, and makes it nearly impossible for Big Sky champs to get winnable first-round matchups.

6. Recruiting to most Big Sky schools is extremely difficult. You have bad facilities, bad travel situations, virtually no television exposure, poor fan support and several footprint states like Idaho and Montana that don't produce much D-1 talent.

I don't see any of these factors changing much in the near future, although every now and then you'll see a Weber or Montana rise up and put a good enough product on the floor that they can win an occasional NCAA game.

 

[first11]

So far the zags are wetting their pants versus the zona cats..


Weber did well in their game.....b dogs not so much

So are you going sell everyone that Weber is better than Gonzaga?

Nope..just an observation on one match up..that is all