Musings on Next Season

[GrizBall]

I saw all of these positive expectations a few years back when the incoming players were going to do this and that. They all did what they were told from the sidelines. How did that work for the griz. We lost 8 players because they weren’t playing their game as a team, they were staged directed. Hope this coming year is different.

:thumb:

I don’t know the particular situation of any departures but while 8 sounds like a big number, IMO there were only 3 that were consistently in the rotation (although I would count Owens as a 4th particularly with the season he had the year before). This is the new normal in college basketball. Montana definitely wasn’t an outlier.

We already know for a fact next year Anderson and Moody will be gone. I would put the over/under at 3.5 additional transfers out.

IMO, the two greatest attributes a Big Sky coach needs now to be successful is the ability to recruit the portal and the ability to bring a new team together quickly. If your system is such that it takes a year or two for a player to thrive, you won’t have a winning program. “The reason we aren’t playing well is because we have so many new players” is an excuse I wouldn’t accept as an AD or fan base because pretty much everyone is in the same boat.

I grew tired of the “youth” excuse the last couple of years. It became such a team and coaching mantra that the players were beginning to believe it and use it as an excuse. I would never allow a player to state “we are just too young.” If you believe you are too young to play winning basketball then you shouldn’t be playing. That’s when I knew things were going downhill.

It may sound like hyperbole, but next year is a critical year. After two down years, there shouldn’t be a third for any reason. I think the Big Sky will be the worst it’s been overall over the last couple of years so it’s ripe for success.

The first time you hear the reason we lost is that “we have too many new players” you know it’s probably the beginning of the end.

 

[citygriz]

Players are one part of the problem. Let's hope we've got that problem solved with the newcomers.

The other is our offense. I noted in the story about Gina Marxen on the women's side that she was interested in finding "an offensive scheme she could fit into." This is important for players.

I'm not a fan of DeCurie's offense nor a fan of the constant bellowing and monitoring from the sideline. He's the coach but no longer the point guard. I've urged this program to hire an offensive coordinator like the one we had early in the DeCuire tenure, Ken Bone (now at Pepperdine.) It was Mike Montgomery during the Oregon game who said he "could not diagram the Montana offense."

Has that problem been fixed?

 

[Hoops watcher]

Double post

I saw all of these positive expectations a few years back when the incoming players were going to do this and that. They all did what they were told from the sidelines. How did that work for the griz. We lost 8 players because they weren’t playing their game as a team, they were staged directed. Hope this coming year is different.

We get it, you don't like the coach. As far as expectations and new personnel fans here are engaging in what fans do every preseason for every team in the country every preseason. And most agree that we want to see improvement. This coach has had success and everyone (maybe not everyone) wants to see that again.

 

[Hoops watcher]

Players are one part of the problem. Let's hope we've got that problem solved with the newcomers.

The other is our offense. I noted in the story about Gina Marxen on the women's side that she was interested in finding "an offensive scheme she could fit into." This is important for players.

I'm not a fan of DeCurie's offense nor a fan of the constant bellowing and monitoring from the sideline. He's the coach but no longer the point guard. I've urged this program to hire an offensive coordinator like the one we had early in the DeCuire tenure, Ken Bone (now at Pepperdine.) It was Mike Montgomery during the Oregon game who said he "could not diagram the Montana offense."

Has that problem been fixed?

I think most people have become more frustrated with the stagnant O as the years have rolled on. The first couple seasons we had enough individual talent to overcome those shortcomings. We have lacked talent that is able to break down defenders in recent years and the results are obvious. Let's hope the O is updated and the players are given more freedom. Nothing wrong with emphasizing D, but you have to have a little fun on O. In the new free agent era it's clearly necessary as many have observed.

 

[UncleRico]

Players are one part of the problem. Let's hope we've got that problem solved with the newcomers.

The other is our offense. I noted in the story about Gina Marxen on the women's side that she was interested in finding "an offensive scheme she could fit into." This is important for players.

I'm not a fan of DeCurie's offense nor a fan of the constant bellowing and monitoring from the sideline. He's the coach but no longer the point guard. I've urged this program to hire an offensive coordinator like the one we had early in the DeCuire tenure, Ken Bone (now at Pepperdine.) It was Mike Montgomery during the Oregon game who said he "could not diagram the Montana offense."

Has that problem been fixed?

I think most people have become more frustrated with the stagnant O as the years have rolled on. The first couple seasons we had enough individual talent to overcome those shortcomings. We have lacked talent that is able to break down defenders in recent years and the results are obvious. Let's hope the O is updated and the players are given more freedom. Nothing wrong with emphasizing D, but you have to have a little fun on O. In the new free agent era it's clearly necessary as many have observed.

So looking at the last few years there are a few things that stand out. First Travis and his staff are elite defensive coaches. The best in the conference and it really isn't even close. And I think adding athletic Oke and Brown this year to go along with the best perimeter defensive player in Big Sky (Whitney) already here this team could be one of the best defensive teams under Travis. But I agree the Griz have to be better offensively especially late in games. I think the lack of chemistry the last couple years was most evident late in games on the offensive end. That will be the key to being a top 3 team in Big Sky in my opinion.

Offensive Defensive record

2016-17 74.2 *7 73.7 *2 14-16
2017-18 77.2 *4 68.5 *1 26-8
2018-19 74.7 *5 67.4 *1 26-10
2019-20 70.8 *6 68.5 *5 18-13
2020-21 70.8 *6 67.0 *3 15-13
2021-22 72.2 *8 66.4 *1 18-14

*Big Sky Rank

 

[GrizBall]

I think most people have become more frustrated with the stagnant O as the years have rolled on. The first couple seasons we had enough individual talent to overcome those shortcomings. We have lacked talent that is able to break down defenders in recent years and the results are obvious. Let's hope the O is updated and the players are given more freedom. Nothing wrong with emphasizing D, but you have to have a little fun on O. In the new free agent era it's clearly necessary as many have observed.

So looking at the last few years there are a few things that stand out. First Travis and his staff are elite defensive coaches. The best in the conference and it really isn't even close. And I think adding athletic Oke and Brown this year to go along with the best perimeter defensive player in Big Sky (Whitney) already here this team could be one of the best defensive teams under Travis. But I agree the Griz have to be better offensively especially late in games. I think the lack of chemistry the last couple years was most evident late in games on the offensive end. That will be the key to being a top 3 team in Big Sky in my opinion.

Offensive Defensive record

2016-17 74.2 *7 73.7 *2 14-16
2017-18 77.2 *4 68.5 *1 26-8
2018-19 74.7 *5 67.4 *1 26-10
2019-20 70.8 *6 68.5 *5 18-13
2020-21 70.8 *6 67.0 *3 15-13
2021-22 72.2 *8 66.4 *1 18-14

*Big Sky Rank

Using points per game as a metric doesn't take tempo into consideration, which tends to inflate Montana's defensive reputation. Montana typically has a very slow pace of play. This pace reduces the amount of opponent's possessions which typically will reduce their points per game. It's not completely apples-to-apples, but giving up 75 points on 75 possessions is a better defense than giving up 68 points on 65 possessions. Defensive efficiency measures every team on points given up per 100 possessions which is generally a better way to compare defenses because it accounts for the impact of tempo.

Defensive PPG Defensive Efficiency Tempo

2016-17 73.7 *2 105.6 *6 11
2017-18 68.5 *1 94.8 *1 7
2018-19 67.4 *1 100.4 *2 5
2019-20 68.5 *5 98.0 *3 5
2020-21 67.0 *3 103.0 *7 9
2021-22 66.4 *1 103.8 *4 8

If you assume an 11 team league with 5.5 being average according to Defensive Efficiency, they were below average 2 out of 6 years and pretty close to average in another. They are almost always towards last in tempo.

 

[GrizBall]

According to offensive and defensive efficiencies in league play IMO the defense is not as good as the perception and the offense is not as bad as the perception. Defensive/offensive efficiencies below (Source: KenPom). There is a clear downward trend in both categories the last two years (although the only net negative year was 20-21), so this year will really tell a lot about the program. Were the last two years a blip or a foreshadow?

2016-17 105.6 *6 111.2 *3
2017-18 94.8 *1 113.6 *2
2018-19 100.4 *2 114.6 *1
2019-20 98.0 *3 107.3 *3
2020-21 103.0 *7 102.5 *6
2021-22 103.8 *4 106.6 *6

Sum ranks 23 21

 

[oldrunner]

From the outside looking in, it appears to me that you have strengthened your front court depth and lost a little depth in the back court. Your coaches are probably thinking of getting better matchups with MSU and it looks to me like they have accomplished that. How it all turns out, that is the big question. Recruiting is always a crap shoot. Most of the BSC schools have added what appear to be good pieces, at least on paper. The only constant seems to be the coaching and we know who most of the good coaches are. On that front, the biggest unknowns are at Sac and WSU. In the end, I expect that the top 4 or 5 won't change much from last year. The actual order could go a lot of ways. :thumb:

 

[GrizBall]

From the outside looking in, it appears to me that you have strengthened your front court depth and lost a little depth in the back court. Your coaches are probably thinking of getting better matchups with MSU and it looks to me like they have accomplished that. How it all turns out, that is the big question. Recruiting is always a crap shoot. Most of the BSC schools have added what appear to be good pieces, at least on paper. The only constant seems to be the coaching and we know who most of the good coaches are. On that front, the biggest unknowns are at Sac and WSU. In the end, I expect that the top 4 or 5 won't change much from last year. The actual order could go a lot of ways. :thumb:

Agreed. I think Sac has the biggest upside potential (compared to recent years) while WSU could possibly be trending downward.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

From the outside looking in, it appears to me that you have strengthened your front court depth and lost a little depth in the back court. Your coaches are probably thinking of getting better matchups with MSU and it looks to me like they have accomplished that. How it all turns out, that is the big question. Recruiting is always a crap shoot. Most of the BSC schools have added what appear to be good pieces, at least on paper. The only constant seems to be the coaching and we know who most of the good coaches are. On that front, the biggest unknowns are at Sac and WSU. In the end, I expect that the top 4 or 5 won't change much from last year. The actual order could go a lot of ways. :thumb:

Solid perspective & precise analysis, oldrunner. Your brief post describes (to me) the "state" of D1 college basketball today. The top priority of good coaches is no longer focused upon building programs that mark the character & identity of coaches and schools. Instead, successful coaches are now evaluated/judged (by players, fans, sports journalists and ADs) on how they build teams for "this" year. It's becoming a yearly cycle... not-yet quite as volatile or fluid as professional basketball. To me, the formula for success now seems to have transitioned from team/program stability where where coaches & players build cyclical identity over 3-5 seasons. Instead, it's morphing into into a more volatile "win now" concept of team construction that is based upon: A -- a coach's abilities to constantly recruit (charisma?) and then , B -- rapidly build a team designed for instant competitive success under the constant awareness that the cycle will repeat on a 1-2 seasonal basis instead of the previous norm of 3-6 seasons, OR on the reputation of a school (and-or coach) historically known for basketball success.

In that perspective, I'm not nearly as capable (I'm confused, actually) of guessing how the Griz, or the Cats, or the Wildcats will do this upcoming season. Or if a Hornet, a Lumberjack, a Vik or an Eagle will emerge as upcoming Big Sky hoops powers.

 

[citygriz]

From the outside looking in, it appears to me that you have strengthened your front court depth and lost a little depth in the back court. Your coaches are probably thinking of getting better matchups with MSU and it looks to me like they have accomplished that. How it all turns out, that is the big question. Recruiting is always a crap shoot. Most of the BSC schools have added what appear to be good pieces, at least on paper. The only constant seems to be the coaching and we know who most of the good coaches are. On that front, the biggest unknowns are at Sac and WSU. In the end, I expect that the top 4 or 5 won't change much from last year. The actual order could go a lot of ways. :thumb:

Solid perspective & precise analysis, oldrunner. Your brief post describes (to me) the "state" of D1 college basketball today. The top priority of good coaches is no longer focused upon building programs that mark the character & identity of coaches and schools. Instead, successful coaches are now evaluated/judged (by players, fans, sports journalists and ADs) on how they build teams for "this" year. It's becoming a yearly cycle... not-yet quite as volatile or fluid as professional basketball. To me, the formula for success now seems to have transitioned from team/program stability where where coaches & players build cyclical identity over 3-5 seasons. Instead, it's morphing into into a more volatile "win now" concept of team construction that is based upon: A -- a coach's abilities to constantly recruit (charisma?) and then , B -- quickly build a team designed for instant competitive success and a constant awareness that the cycle will repeat on a 1-2 seasonal basis instead of the previous norm of 3-6 seasons, or on the reputation of a school (and-or coach) historically known for basketball success.

In that perspective, I'm not nearly as capable (I'm confused, actually) of guessing how the Griz, or the Cats, or the Wildcats will do this upcoming season. Or if a Hornet, a Lumberjack, a Vik or an Eagle with emerge as upcoming Big Sky hoops powers.

We're definitely in a new era when it comes to college basketball. Simply: Players now have free agency. The coaches have always had it in the college ranks--build a winner, move on up, have the new school buy out your contract if necessary. The pro's have had it for years, ever since the Supreme Court tossed out baseball's old Reserve Clause. Now that college basketball has become a multi-billion dollar enterprise, free agency has finally come down to the players because the money always eventually goes to the talent. And the NCAA's arguments before the Supreme Court for maintaining their anti-trust position were so ridiculous they got clobbered, 9-0. Imagine that, in today's divided Court.

So, yeah, from now on, we're gonna see a lot of turnover every year in every program, as we are this year. So be it. I welcome it. And the best coaches will embrace the new order rather than pine for an old era that ain't ever coming back.

 

[oldrunner]

Solid perspective & precise analysis, oldrunner. Your brief post describes (to me) the "state" of D1 college basketball today. The top priority of good coaches is no longer focused upon building programs that mark the character & identity of coaches and schools. Instead, successful coaches are now evaluated/judged (by players, fans, sports journalists and ADs) on how they build teams for "this" year. It's becoming a yearly cycle... not-yet quite as volatile or fluid as professional basketball. To me, the formula for success now seems to have transitioned from team/program stability where where coaches & players build cyclical identity over 3-5 seasons. Instead, it's morphing into into a more volatile "win now" concept of team construction that is based upon: A -- a coach's abilities to constantly recruit (charisma?) and then , B -- quickly build a team designed for instant competitive success and a constant awareness that the cycle will repeat on a 1-2 seasonal basis instead of the previous norm of 3-6 seasons, or on the reputation of a school (and-or coach) historically known for basketball success.

In that perspective, I'm not nearly as capable (I'm confused, actually) of guessing how the Griz, or the Cats, or the Wildcats will do this upcoming season. Or if a Hornet, a Lumberjack, a Vik or an Eagle with emerge as upcoming Big Sky hoops powers.

We're definitely in a new era when it comes to college basketball. Simply: Players now have free agency. The coaches have always had it in the college ranks--build a winner, move on up, have the new school buy out your contract if necessary. The pro's have had it for years, ever since the Supreme Court tossed out baseball's old Reserve Clause. Now that college basketball has become a multi-billion dollar enterprise, free agency has finally come down to the players because the money always eventually goes to the talent. And the NCAA's arguments before the Supreme Court for maintaining their anti-trust position were so ridiculous they got clobbered, 9-0. Imagine that, in today's divided Court.

So, yeah, from now on, we're gonna see a lot of turnover every year in every program, as we are this year. So be it. I welcome it. And the best coaches will embrace the new order rather than pine for an old era that ain't ever coming back.

Yes, it is a new NCAA basketball world. However, another dynamic is that the JC ranks are being flooded with more talent than before and some very good HS players are being passed on by P5 programs due to the amount of talent in the portal and at JCs. A good mid major program is going to find HS kids who may not have been available to them in the past. Weber has landed a couple of those sorts of players for next year. We will likely have a couple of true freshmen playing a lot for us next season and it's not because we lack talent. It's because they are that good. EWU did quite a lot with 2 or 3 freshmen last year. Other than our PG, Coby McEwen, we didn't really lose any talent that we haven't replaced. We may be a little thin at the point, but we do have two grants left to fill. Rumors are that we have some very good, grad transfer guards on the line. I think we are also looking at some PFs. Although, that spot is less critical right now.

 

[CleanHOUSE]

According to offensive and defensive efficiencies in league play IMO the defense is not as good as the perception and the offense is not as bad as the perception. Defensive/offensive efficiencies below (Source: KenPom). There is a clear downward trend in both categories the last two years (although the only net negative year was 20-21), so this year will really tell a lot about the program. Were the last two years a blip or a foreshadow?

2016-17 105.6 *6 111.2 *3
2017-18 94.8 *1 113.6 *2
2018-19 100.4 *2 114.6 *1
2019-20 98.0 *3 107.3 *3
2020-21 103.0 *7 102.5 *6
2021-22 103.8 *4 106.6 *6

Sum ranks 23 21

Yeah I agree D is overrated and benefits from people just looking at PPG. The main thing I notice is how often has the D really won games for us? Say by forcing runout turnovers that lead to points, or by making high skill high pressure defensive stops at the end of the game without fouling or by shutting down a star player or dominating the boards...top offensive players tend to get theirs against the Griz. Griz D is very solid/technically sound and keeps games close,(not the same as making high skill plays clutch plays that sway games). IMO a really GOOD defense should be better than the sum of its parts, and for the most part if the other team has bigger more talented players they get their points without to much of an issue (last year especially when good players just drove right at the Griz, the Griz often got bullied). Kinda my problem with both the Offense and Defense really is that a lot of the Griz style/philosophy tends to be predicated on being more athletic/talented. When the Griz are faster and stronger they usually win, when the other team is faster and stronger Griz usually lose and often embarrassingly so because they have no strategies that lessen the impact of a talent gap (i.e shooting and ball movement, or creative D schemes). It works fine to be consistent in Bigsky if you recruit well, but relying on top 3rd Bigsky athleticism set a pretty low and hard ceiling for what your D or O can do to win you games. I mean against upper tier competition its so frustrating cause the game plan seems to be "lets be stronger and faster than them/Oregon/Michigan!...ooops cant get the ball inside the 3pt line and have no shooters and can't keep their guys out of the paint...gg"

 

[citygriz]

According to offensive and defensive efficiencies in league play IMO the defense is not as good as the perception and the offense is not as bad as the perception. Defensive/offensive efficiencies below (Source: KenPom). There is a clear downward trend in both categories the last two years (although the only net negative year was 20-21), so this year will really tell a lot about the program. Were the last two years a blip or a foreshadow?

2016-17 105.6 *6 111.2 *3
2017-18 94.8 *1 113.6 *2
2018-19 100.4 *2 114.6 *1
2019-20 98.0 *3 107.3 *3
2020-21 103.0 *7 102.5 *6
2021-22 103.8 *4 106.6 *6

Sum ranks 23 21

Yeah I agree D is overrated and benefits from people just looking at PPG. The main thing I notice is how often has the D really won games for us? Say by forcing runout turnovers that lead to points, or by making high skill high pressure defensive stops at the end of the game without fouling or by shutting down a star player or dominating the boards...top offensive players tend to get theirs against the Griz. Griz D is very solid/technically sound and keeps games close,(not the same as making high skill plays clutch plays that sway games). IMO a really GOOD defense should be better than the sum of its parts, and for the most part if the other team has bigger more talented players they get their points without to much of an issue (last year especially when good players just drove right at the Griz, the Griz often got bullied). Kinda my problem with both the Offense and Defense really is that a lot of the Griz style/philosophy tends to be predicated on being more athletic/talented. When the Griz are faster and stronger they usually win, when the other team is faster and stronger Griz usually lose and often embarrassingly so because they have no strategies that lessen the impact of a talent gap (i.e shooting and ball movement, or creative D schemes). It works fine to be consistent in Bigsky if you recruit well, but relying on top 3rd Bigsky athleticism set a pretty low and hard ceiling for what your D or O can do to win you games. I mean against upper tier competition its so frustrating cause the game plan seems to be "lets be stronger and faster than them/Oregon/Michigan!...ooops cant get the ball inside the 3pt line and have no shooters and can't keep their guys out of the paint...gg"

Well said.

When DeCuire became head coach, he hired Ken Bone, a noted offensive coach, as his top assistant. This was an impressive first hire for two reasons: Bone had been a head coach when DeCuire hadn't; and he was thirteen years older. When Bone left, DeCuire replaced him with younger assistants. Good for recruiting? Probably. But for somebody within his coaching ranks who could tell him when something wasn't working, or the offensive scheme was weak? Not likely.

DeCuire has always impressed me as a "my-way-or-the-highway" kind of guy. Good for discipline? For graduating players?

Definitely.

But for addressing weaknesses this board has been screaming about for years, like little movement off the ball? Fewer three-point attempts than almost any other team in the NCAA? Almost no passing out of the post? A pace that allows the other team always to set up its defense?

Not so much.

Anybody here remember Pete ("The Yoda") Carril, the old coach at Princeton? He'd get his teams into the NCAA tournament and then give bigger more athletic teams fits with his offense. He's still around, at age 91.

It can be done.

But not by this staff alone.

 

[oldrunner]

Yeah I agree D is overrated and benefits from people just looking at PPG. The main thing I notice is how often has the D really won games for us? Say by forcing runout turnovers that lead to points, or by making high skill high pressure defensive stops at the end of the game without fouling or by shutting down a star player or dominating the boards...top

Well said.

When DeCuire became head coach, he hired Ken Bone, a noted offensive coach, as his top assistant. This was an impressive first hire for two reasons: Bone had been a head coach when DeCuire hadn't; and he was thirteen years older. When Bone left, DeCuire replaced him with younger assistants. Good for recruiting? Probably. But for somebody within his coaching ranks who could tell him when something wasn't working, or the offensive scheme was weak? Not likely.

DeCuire has always impressed me as a "my-way-or-the-highway" kind of guy. Good for discipline? For graduating players?

Definitely.

But for addressing weaknesses this board has been screaming about for years, like little movement off the ball? Fewer three-point attempts than almost any other team in the NCAA? Almost no passing out of the post? A pace that allows the other team always to set up its defense?

Not so much.

Anybody here remember Pete ("The Yoda") Carril, the old coach at Princeton? He'd get his teams into the NCAA tournament and then give bigger more athletic teams fits with his offense. He's still around, at age 91.

It can be done.

But not by this staff alone.

TD is one of the best coaches in the BSC. His teams always compete hard and play 40 minutes of solid basketball. All coaches have their weaknesses. The best coaches go to great lengths to improve apon those weaknesses. I don't think it is a matter of hiring older assistants, but hiring nothing but yes men is a problem. Of course, the head coach has the final say in almost everything, but you are right, a team of coaches needs to be totally honest with each other and with the players. I don't know the inner workings of TD's program, but I see a lot of good things from the outside. I have no doubt that UM will be right back up near the top next season. I wouldn't count us out either. MSU will be right there and Sac, along with ISU, are goint to make some noise. I don't see how anyone gets through league play without at least 4 loses.

 

[citygriz]

Well said.

When DeCuire became head coach, he hired Ken Bone, a noted offensive coach, as his top assistant. This was an impressive first hire for two reasons: Bone had been a head coach when DeCuire hadn't; and he was thirteen years older. When Bone left, DeCuire replaced him with younger assistants. Good for recruiting? Probably. But for somebody within his coaching ranks who could tell him when something wasn't working, or the offensive scheme was weak? Not likely.

DeCuire has always impressed me as a "my-way-or-the-highway" kind of guy. Good for discipline? For graduating players?

Definitely.

But for addressing weaknesses this board has been screaming about for years, like little movement off the ball? Fewer three-point attempts than almost any other team in the NCAA? Almost no passing out of the post? A pace that allows the other team always to set up its defense?

Not so much.

Anybody here remember Pete ("The Yoda") Carril, the old coach at Princeton? He'd get his teams into the NCAA tournament and then give bigger more athletic teams fits with his offense. He's still around, at age 91.

It can be done.

But not by this staff alone.

TD is one of the best coaches in the BSC. His teams always compete hard and play 40 minutes of solid basketball. All coaches have their weaknesses. The best coaches go to great lengths to improve apon those weaknesses. I don't think it is a matter of hiring older assistants, but hiring nothing but yes men is a problem. Of course, the head coach has the final say in almost everything, but you are right, a team of coaches needs to be totally honest with each other and with the players. I don't know the inner workings of TD's program, but I see a lot of good things from the outside. I have no doubt that UM will be right back up near the top next season. I wouldn't count us out either. MSU will be right there and Sac, along with ISU, are goint to make some noise. I don't see how anyone gets through league play without at least 4 loses.

I guess one's attitude depends on one's expectations. After all, the easiest way to succeed is to lower the requirements for success!

Both Montana and Weber State are already "Big Sky powers" and have been for a long time. Both programs have produced notable players, exceptional coaches and the occasional upset at the Big Dance--most notably Weber's takedown of North Carolina back in 1999 when Harold Arceneaux went for 36. Both schools have the best facilities in the Big Sky, and the Purple Palace is clearly a Power Five arena.

So when I criticize our program, I'm hoping for more than "Big Sky Power." Maybe because I no longer live in Montana I've always had my sights sent on national recognition, some of which we received the year we upset Nevada and came within one half of errant three-point shooting of making it to the Sweet 16 against Boston College back in 2006. This is my standard. I'm not really pounding my chest about the "Big Sky" banners hung in Dahlberg when both our men's and women's teams go to the NCAA tournament and get massacred by bigger more athletic teams--as has happened for many years, for both the men and the Lady Griz.

Nor do I feel this is an unreasonable expectation. We have the coaching tree, we have the facilities, we have the educational excellence and a collegiate town atmosphere and campus that should appeal to recruits--as it seems to be doing right now for several high-profile high-school women.

So that's my story, my expectations, and I'm sticking to them, our offense be damned.

 

[oldrunner]

I'm right with you. Our expectations are the same. It's frustrating when you can see areas that need addressing in our programs. When ever I get too discouraged, I look around at all of the other programs who would love to be in our shoes and it gives me a little perspective. It all starts with recruiting and that arena is highly competitive. We all like to think that our communities and schools are the best, but we are both viewing the world with purple/maroon colored lenses. I try hard to enjoy the process and keep a positive outlook on what ever the outcomes are.

Football is coming up quick and I think we get you guys at our place this year. Can't hardly wait.

 

[GrizBall]

Here is my 2 cents:

1. Athletes today are not much interested in history anymore. They would rather come in and play early and often for an average team than sit/play sparingly for a winner. A very much what can you do for me today environment (hence the number of transfers). One team from the BSC goes to the tourney and is generally promptly blown out in the first game. I just don’t think a lot of decisions are being made with those odds in mind.

2. From the UM games I have been to recently and the WSU games I have seen on TV, there is no perceptible advantage in fan base. Yes they may draw more than ISU, but IMO it’s not a big enough difference where it’s tipping the scales in any decisions. NIL will likely never be a factor for any BSC team.

3. Every school has a S&C coach, shooting guns and at least a decent enough weight room. My guess is that while UM’s weight room is probably nicer than ISU’s, I doubt the S&C programs are much different or that UM players are making much greater gains that ISU’s athletes. Plus, all these athletes have personal basketball and S&C trainers. They are very savvy. It’s a long ways from when PE classes were the opportunity high school kids had for supervised training.

4. Athletes are looking at places where they they be noticed. I think WSU’s success with transfers such as Isiah Brown, Kobe McEwen and Sisho-Jawara would be something they can sell. Many people on this board wondered how SUU could get John Knight and Tevian Jones to Cedar City. It’s because they offered a style of play and a platform. Both had personal and team success. And although they didn’t win a championship, they were probably the best team over the last couple of years.

The portal has changed many things. With 1700 D-1 kids in the portal, common sense would dictate that UM’s top targets weren’t a D-2, an NAIA and SUU’s 7th best player.

Are we looking at things through our maroon-colored glasses that are heavily skewed by history and not through the eyes of what a transfer coming from a more competitive conference thinks is important today? Because to have sustained success in today’s environment, that is really the only opinion that matters.

 

[UncleRico]

From the outside looking in, it appears to me that you have strengthened your front court depth and lost a little depth in the back court. Your coaches are probably thinking of getting better matchups with MSU and it looks to me like they have accomplished that. How it all turns out, that is the big question. Recruiting is always a crap shoot. Most of the BSC schools have added what appear to be good pieces, at least on paper. The only constant seems to be the coaching and we know who most of the good coaches are. On that front, the biggest unknowns are at Sac and WSU. In the end, I expect that the top 4 or 5 won't change much from last year. The actual order could go a lot of ways. :thumb:

I would say Travis has been the BEST coach in the Big Sky during his tenure. I think a lot of Griz fans think it is easy to recruit basketball players to Montana. D1 basketball talent as a whole come from urban areas. Portland area has 2.5 million people, Sacramento County has 1.5 million in a state of 56 million, Flagstaff is a couple hours from the 5th largest city in the US, Ogden is within 30 minutes of 1.5 million people and even Cheney is in a county with over 500,000. Montana is just over a million with the largest city in Montana is only 100,000 and 5 hours away. Look at all the Griz that entered the transfer portal... they all left and either went back near home or back to mostly urban areas. Missoula is great but has long winters and less than 1% of the population is African American. And Montana as a whole has the lowest African American population in the nation. Travis has to work hard to get kids here. Yet in his tenure at UM this is how the Griz have fared against the Big Sky.
Montana 103-46 .691
EWU. 101-46. .687
Weber St. 92-55. .625
N Colorado. 84-62. .575
MSU. 75-71. .513
PSU. 72-74. .493
S Utah. 62-84. .424
Sac St. 59-87. .404
Idaho. 59-91. .393
Idaho St. 51-95. .349
N. Arizona. 48-98. .328
The last couple of years have been disappointing in large part because the Griz were so young. Unfortunately the transfer portal is tough for coaches like Travis that coach kids hard. This team is now full of experienced players in their early
20's instead of 18 and 19 year olds and I think we will see a much better squad this year.

 

[GrizBall]

From the outside looking in, it appears to me that you have strengthened your front court depth and lost a little depth in the back court. Your coaches are probably thinking of getting better matchups with MSU and it looks to me like they have accomplished that. How it all turns out, that is the big question. Recruiting is always a crap shoot. Most of the BSC schools have added what appear to be good pieces, at least on paper. The only constant seems to be the coaching and we know who most of the good coaches are. On that front, the biggest unknowns are at Sac and WSU. In the end, I expect that the top 4 or 5 won't change much from last year. The actual order could go a lot of ways. :thumb:

I would say Travis has been the BEST coach in the Big Sky during his tenure. I think a lot of Griz fans think it is easy to recruit basketball players to Montana. D1 basketball talent as a whole come from urban areas. Portland area has 2.5 million people, Sacramento County has 1.5 million in a state of 56 million, Flagstaff is a couple hours from the 5th largest city in the US, Ogden is within 30 minutes of 1.5 million people and even Cheney is in a county with over 500,000. Montana is just over a million with the largest city in Montana is only 100,000 and 5 hours away. Look at all the Griz that entered the transfer portal... they all left and either went back near home or back to mostly urban areas. Missoula is great but has long winters and less than 1% of the population is African American. And Montana as a whole has the lowest African American population in the nation. Travis has to work hard to get kids here. Yet in his tenure at UM this is how the Griz have fared against the Big Sky.
Montana 103-46 .691
EWU. 101-46. .687
Weber St. 92-55. .625
N Colorado. 84-62. .575
MSU. 75-71. .513
PSU. 72-74. .493
S Utah. 62-84. .424
Sac St. 59-87. .404
Idaho. 59-91. .393
Idaho St. 51-95. .349
N. Arizona. 48-98. .328
The last couple of years have been disappointing in large part because the Griz were so young. Unfortunately the transfer portal is tough for coaches like Travis that coach kids hard. This team is now full of experienced players in their early
20's instead of 18 and 19 year olds and I think we will see a much better squad this year.

This is interesting as I never would have thought the top 2 would have been anyone but the Griz and Weber.

I would also quibble about whether being the Winningest = Best. For example, despite finishing 6th in the BSC conference last year, you can make the argument that Riley at EWU did the best coaching job in the conference. But your point is well-taken. The Griz have finished in the top 3 of the BSC 5 of those years and that is pretty good sustained success.

I would also say experience is not always the “cure-all”. The Griz were more experienced last year than the year before but by most measures weren’t as good.

I think you could also make the argument that this is their least experienced team. Going into last year, at least by my count, there were only 2 scholarship players (Briggs and Martin) that had never played a D-1 season. This year almost half the team’s scholarship players (6/13 - 4 frosh and 2 non-D1 transfers) have never played a D-1 season.

But I do agree the overall age of the projected rotation will be older in calendar years, which makes it less likely that the team will be at the physicality deficit it had seemingly been the last couple of years, particularly at the 4 & 5 spots.