Playing Up a Division????

BobCatKid · Post by **BobCatKid** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:48 pm

Perhaps all of you that have decided that replacment of Mick is the solution to all Cat BB problems should contact the person who knows more about what Mick has done in the last 20 years to even maintain Cat BB than anyone, and certainly more than any of you, Dean Alexander. He could give you an education that you would not want to hear. Also, only a minor issue to consider in all of that is the fact that the lowest paid guy on the Wyo BB staff makes more than Mick and Mick's team took that about $700,000 a year guy to a one point loss on a basically Wyo court (Billings). Any of you who are willing to come up with the about $200,000 more to go hire a proven winner who can recruit to MSU and keep people here( there ain't no intersession here) should step right up. Neb. has 10 lettermen back from a team that won 18--against a lot tougher teams than the Big Sky and missed by 1 point of being in the NIT fianal 4--and the two best players on the Neb. team are freshmen.

Post by **rtb** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:19 pm

BobCatKid wrote:Perhaps all of you that have decided that replacment of Mick is the solution to all Cat BB problems should contact the person who knows more about what Mick has done in the last 20 years to even maintain Cat BB than anyone, and certainly more than any of you, Dean Alexander. He could give you an education that you would not want to hear. Also, only a minor issue to consider in all of that is the fact that the lowest paid guy on the Wyo BB staff makes more than Mick and Mick's team took that about $700,000 a year guy to a one point loss on a basically Wyo court (Billings). Any of you who are willing to come up with the about $200,000 more to go hire a proven winner who can recruit to MSU and keep people here( there ain't no intersession here) should step right up. Neb. has 10 lettermen back from a team that won 18--against a lot tougher teams than the Big Sky and missed by 1 point of being in the NIT fianal 4--and the two best players on the Neb. team are freshmen.

We are not saying that Mick leaving will solve all of the basketball program's problems. We are not attacking his character or person. Simply we think that a change may put some life back into this program that is losing steam. Also, has anyone here said Mick was bad for MSU basketball? No, he has done many great things including running one of the cleanest programs in college!! What is being said by those looking at the situation objectively is simply this....We would like to see the program take a new direction by way of a new coach. Also, the amount a coach makes is not part of this argument. We don't have to hire some big shot name to come to MSU, there are plenty of young coaches who work their way up through the ranks and if we find a guy who can use MSU as a stepping stone to bigger things I am guessing we can afford him.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND, WE ALL LIKE MICK, HE HAS DONE GREAT THINGS! SOME OF US JUST BELIEVE IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE!

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:42 pm

Next to Mick, what Big Sky coach has the longest tenure? I'm thinking either Cravens or Adras and how many years have they been there? Mick is the winningest coach in Big Sky history...but where does he stand in conference winning percentage? According to my calculations 50.9% That says mediocrity. But maybe that's enough for most Bobcat fans who like to see a clean program. I would think that some would like a better performance.

What I'm trying to say is that the entire conference is built on up and coming coaches who need to win and move up. Mick is an anomaly. He has spent a very large part of the his tenure in the middle of the league, but at least he has made the conference tournament albeit not with very much success (6-7) all time according to the press guide. In conference his first four were losing seasons; his next six were winning including two 8-6 and two 9-7 and one 10-6. The other one was a great 11-3 in 95-96. His last 5 were three losing, one winning (12-2 in 2001-02), and one 8-8 in 2000-01.

HIs career reads like a bell curve with an ascension and a decline. Because of football being the focal point and his impeccable integrity, he has not been held up to very much criticism. In that time he has the undying respect of everyone he has come in contact with, but he doesn't scare anyone. Everyone knows how he coaches, and they are usually prepared for us. Now with Football moving into a more lofty esteem, It may be time for Pete Fields to work on basketball. He has to decide if 50% is acceptable...and if it is...Mick is his man!

FootballFan · Post by **FootballFan** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:54 am

Interesting, 50% winning percentage (actually less than that for Kramer) is acceptable for the football program!

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:17 am

Funny how Kramer has won exactly as many Big Sky titles as Mick has, and been involved in more post season play than Mick.

And by the way, Kramer's 6-5 records are not acceptable in Bozeman! Up to this point he's been rebuilding a program...now its time for him to show us what he's built.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:10 am

I am still curious -- for those posters who were upset that any kind of criticism was going Durham's way for his recent comments (and/or performance over the last several years), do you have any comments about the actual subject of the thread -- what do you think about his comments regarding "playing up a division" against Nebraska? I honestly haven't heard any contrary opinions on the matter other than the negative ones posted already, and I would be very interested to hear from somebody who can defend or at least make sense of what he said. That seems to me to be a much more constructive conversation route than the "criticism of criticism" circle we were locked into yesterday.

wbtfg · Post by **wbtfg** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:24 am

I have been one of the people who have defended Mick over the past couple of years, but this comment really disturbs me. There's no way that we should consider playing Nebraska as playing "up a division." I remember when we used to regularly beat teams from the SEC, Big 12, Pac 10...etc. I really don't like the direction that our program has been headed the past few years. I will be the first to say that it's not all Mick's fault, but this quote really makes me wonder what kind of winning attitude he is portraying to our players.

I will reserve judgement on whether Mick should go until the season has been completed (they might surprise us), but I'm definitely leaning towards getting some new blood in there.

On another note. There has been some discussion on the recruitment of JCs verses HS kids. I was thinking about this yesterday, and I really believe that Mick knows his job is on the line, and that is why he has gone after the "quick fix" rather than building a solid foundation of high school kids.

On yet another note....I'm surprised that we've made it onto the second page of a bball thread without a comment from mslacat comment. I'd love to hear his take on Mick's comment.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:31 am

I understand Mick's comment, but I still think it was unfortunate. We should be proud of and ready to defend our Division 1 status. In reality, certainly, we're at a major disadvantage money, publicity and recruiting wise against the Pac-10, Big 10, Big 12,etc., but we should be striving to close the competitive gap, not acknowledge it.

I think it's really just a slip of the tongue that is bound to happen when you say as many words to the media as a head coach must. This had been referred to as a "money game", which is isn't as objectionable a phrase to me as "up a division".

As for whether a coaching change is in order (which is always in discussion for all "money" sports), I wouldn't state any opinion mid-season. I support the coaches and players we have and have enjoyed watching this team. I hope for a more physically imposing team next season (and fewer injuries), regardless of who is in charge (same for Coach K's basketball team).

uascat2 · Post by **uascat2** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:35 am

I did listen to the game and the post game interview. Mick may have chosen the wrong word when he used "division" . I believe his intent was only directed at the level of competition in in reference to the size of the
University of Nebraska and the fact that they do compete in the Big 12
Conference. By the way, their Athletic Budget for this year is reported
as being over 57 million dollars. And they must be accceptably competative in that conference since the head coach has been there
for about that same length of time as mick has been here.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:52 am

uascat2 wrote:I did listen to the game and the post game interview. Mick may have chosen the wrong word when he used "division" . I believe his intent was only directed at the level of competition in in reference to the size of the
University of Nebraska and the fact that they do compete in the Big 12
Conference. By the way, their Athletic Budget for this year is reported
as being over 57 million dollars. And they must be accceptably competative in that conference since the head coach has been there
for about that same length of time as mick has been here.

Just to point out the lack of relevance the 57 million figure has on this particular conversation, can you dig up the Gonzaga athletic department budget figure for us? Comparing Nebraska's complete AD budget to MSU is obviously not apples to apples, as they compete in 1-A football and offer probably twice as many sports as MSU.

The question really is, do you think that MSU is simply not able to compete with basketball programs from major conferences? Is this what Mick is suggesting (and is this what uascat2 is backing up)? If so, why bother being Division I?

I don't happen to agree with that line of thinking, and I don't think many other people do, either. With that in mind, I would like to see a few wins against decent programs in the country and a lot fewer excuses for losses to really bad programs (or blowouts at the hands of mediocre programs).

Perhaps I am just being nostalgic, but it seems like there once was a time when we would go into every game with a good chance of winning, even against major conference teams. Now, we are apparently supposed to expect to lose to any team in the upper half of the Division I teams in the country. That's really frustrating. Are we going to see that change in the next couple years under Mick? Are we going to start expecting to win against the Colorado's, Texas Tech's and Nebraska's or the world, or is our current "we just can't beat a team that doesn't have a city or multiple directions in their name" mentality a permanent one? If Mick can pull us through this quagmire we have been in for the last couple years, I'm all for him. In the meantime, it is just frustrating to hear what I percieve to be people telling us that this is simply our lot in the basketball world, and that we shouldn't expect better. If that's truly the case, I'm really not interested. I want to at least be teased with the idea of potential success for the program.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:06 pm

In short, I believe with MSU's academics/facilities/setting ... the MSU bball/football team(s) should be top 4 in conference each and every year. There is no excuse as we have one of the finest 1-AA schools/faciilities in 1-AA in the West/Northwest. I know we have been hurt by the 5/8 rule recently and defections, but I 50% of this you can also trace back to the coach etc.

Our programs need to have HIGH EXPECTATIONS and to have some people on here say the fans that do are whining is unacceptable to me. These are not personal attacks on coach Durham as a person. He is hired by MSU to coach/make the MSU basketball team ELITE in the Big Sky year in and year out. If Gonzaga can make their program ELITE nationally, why can't MSU be elite in the Big Sky Conference? I think we have been in such a rut in the basketball program for last 5 years that our expectations as fans have gone down a lot. Sure Durham is a nice guy .. but he's not being paid by MSU to be a nice guy is he? I say if MSU doesn't finish in top 4 this year or next year in standings we should be looking for another coach. There are coaches out there that can get us there .. believe me.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:09 pm

Okay, so I follow MSUs progress a little too closely; I recall several foot-in-mouth comments made by Mick that actually brought a great deal of shame to not only MSU but our state also. Can't deny that, nor can we deny that we're a very high profile and desirable location--even a destination location and the only problem I have with Mick comes from the end of last year when he simply stated he's tired...if the passion is gone, then turn it over to somebody willing to light a fire and continue teaching the quality kids he convinces to come to Bozo...he'll be fine and so will MSU. I'm disappointed in his expectations, that's all. Anyone remember where the program went after Craft? A couple of decent years almost twenty years ago with Damako, Ferch...Money cures a lot of problems in any organization, and the key to making money is putting out a quality product...the last time I checked, there's only 13 scholarship basketball players in any program and coaches all over get them to blend and work together fast. Anyone works better if the expectations and standards are more demanding.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:11 pm

FootballFan wrote:Interesting, 50% winning percentage (actually less than that for Kramer) is acceptable for the football program!

You also need to take into account the trend lines. If the trends are running up and to the right (as is the case with football right now), people are going to be fairly happy. If they are running down and to the right (as has been the case in basketball), then people are less enthusiastic.

The lifetime record of a particular coach isn't generally as big of a concern as their recent trendlines. Just ask any Penn State football fan.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:17 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
FootballFan wrote:Interesting, 50% winning percentage (actually less than that for Kramer) is acceptable for the football program!
You also need to take into account the trend lines. If the trends are running up and to the right (as is the case with football right now), people are going to be fairly happy. If they are running down and to the right (as has been the case in basketball), then people are less enthusiastic.

The lifetime record of a particular coach isn't generally as big of a concern as their recent trendlines. Just ask any Penn State football fan.

Also, Kramer has a program that when put up against any Div 1-AA team most MSU fans know we have a shot at beating them no matter where the game is. The program is BUILDING. Kramer gets it done in conference for the last 4 years. 3rd place or higher in conference the last 4 years (2 Big Sky Championships). Durham has 1-2 Big Sky Championship in 18 years? Conference is where you need to start and build on that.

There is no denying that the MSU football team has been a force (top 2-3) in conference for the last 4 years. You cannot say this for the MSU basketball the last 5 years. Like I said in my previous post. MSU should be top 4 in BOTH each and every year or something is wrong in my opinion.

bobcatsnave · Post by **bobcatsnave** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:25 pm

Maybe he can get them all to play on the team as well?

BCATbread · Post by **BCATbread** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:41 pm

Throughout the years many athletes that have played under mick have questioned his toughness. You see it in our teams at the end of games and more importantly on road trips. I realize a road sweep in the BSC is tough but I also know that when your pregame talk after winning the first half of a split consists of coach(durham) telling you "we should be happy winning one on the trip" you start to question. Basicly these comments have been comming from mick for years, now the general public gets a taste of what his players have been hearing for pregame pep talks during many of those underachieving seasons

MSU88 · Post by **MSU88** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:28 am

On another note. There has been some discussion on the recruitment of JCs verses HS kids. I was thinking about this yesterday, and I really believe that Mick knows his job is on the line, and that is why he has gone after the "quick fix" rather than building a solid foundation of high school kids.

To me this is the saddest part of the whole thing. So much pressure has been put on Coach Durham that he did go out and get a "quick fix." Unfortunately this is not working and is alienating many Cat fans who would rather see Montana and high school kids play. I am all for Big Al and especially Marvin Moss....they have contributed and are "team" players. The others are not and have no "Bobcat pride" that is instilled in a player when they are recuited out of high school.....Lazosky, Leachman, Faaborg, Hatler, Sprinkle, Conway, etc. etc. etc. Dissly, Durham and Durr are these type of players.....born and bred Bobcat and they all need to be on the floor at the same time and for quality minutes. Would the Bobcats be any worse if this was the case?

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:45 am

MSU88 wrote: To me this is the saddest part of the whole thing. So much pressure has been put on Coach Durham that he did go out and get a "quick fix." Unfortunately this is not working and is alienating many Cat fans who would rather see Montana and high school kids play. I am all for Big Al and especially Marvin Moss....they have contributed and are "team" players. The others are not and have no "Bobcat pride" that is instilled in a player when they are recuited out of high school.....Lazosky, Leachman, Faaborg, Hatler, Sprinkle, Conway, etc. etc. etc. Dissly, Durham and Durr are these type of players.....born and bred Bobcat and they all need to be on the floor at the same time and for quality minutes. Would the Bobcats be any worse if this was the case?

I think Jefferson and Miller are good players too...but they won't have a chance at becoming a cohesive unit until next year...and then they'll be gone. You need four year players playing together for at least two before you can hope to build a good program that the incidental addition of one JC does not upset the chemistry of. These JC's are good kids, but can hardly be expected to play as a cohesive unit right away..and when you take 4 of them and make up your starting 5...there's no way

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:56 am

A lot of people think Jefferson and Miller are the best guard tandem in the league. If we can get some more physical guys for up front, next year looks pretty good. The year after will be a pretty new team though. We'll need Holmes to do well by that time.

MSU88 · Post by **MSU88** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:54 pm

velochat wrote:A lot of people think Jefferson and Miller are the best guard tandem in the league. If we can get some more physical guys for up front, next year looks pretty good. The year after will be a pretty new team though. We'll need Holmes to do well by that time.

They are the best guard tandum in the league for shooting us right out of a game!

Playing Up a Division????

Does Mick have any more kids?