MSU bb, for consideration

BobCatKid · Post by **BobCatKid** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:29 pm

There have been comments about MSU and the 5/8 rule; consider the following in your thinking.
2000-01---New--Clark, Jr;Erickson,Fr; Anderson,Fr;Plummer,Jr; Little,Jr; Old: Walton, Sr; Brown, Jr; Lazosky, Sr;Strimlinger, So; Conway, So; Duffy, So; Faaborg, rsFr; Rich,Jr. We were allowed 5 new players, they are under "new".
2001-2002---New---Latovic, Jr;Segeberg,Jr; Williams,Fr; Renolds,Jr; Old: Little, Sr; Drickson,So; Plummer, Sr; Clark,Sr; Faaborg,So; Duffry,Jr;Rich, Sr;Conway, Jr;---The two seniors of 01 were gone. Brown had too much pain to play, Strimlinger never recovered from his injury( and other things), and Anderson left before the season. Thus instead of losing two we lost five. With Strimlinger gone and Duffy caught in the friday-saturday thing, we went after rebounders; the four guys we got were that. But, remember, the loss of Anderson counted for three years, Strimlinger for two and Brown for one. These guys were counted by the NCAA as here for those lenghts of time.
2002-2003---New---Washington,Fr; Ento,Jr; F. Brown,Fr; Barsh,Jr; Old: Erickson, Jr; Conway Sr;Faaborg,Jr; Reynolds,Sr; Segeberg, Jr -redshirted because of injury. The four seniors of 02 were gone and Latovic Williams,and Duffy leaving resulted in seven loses. Because of all of the people leaving early, we were down, even with five new people, to nine on scholarship. Five walk-ons provided enough to practice, and that wasn't enough. Erickson and Ento had their hands broken early--but still tried to play--and Segeberg's back gave out completely. Remember that we are now counting three years for Williams and one each for Latovic and Duffy. According to the NCAA about six players that are long since gone are here and on scholarship.
2003-2004---New---Dissley, Fr;Durr,Fr; Woodall,Jr; Johnson,Fr;Towsely,Jr; Old: Ento,Sr; Brown.So;Erickson,Sr; Faaborg,Sr; Barsh,Sr. In addition to the two seniors of 03, Segeberg had to quit and Washington quit because of personal issues. We are, thus, short of four more scholarship players; Owsley played a bunch as a walkon before personal problems got in the way. Had the NCAA not changed the rule in this year, 2004-05 we would have lost Ento, Erickson, Faaborg, Barsh, and, really Johnson and Brown and been able to recruit 3 (maybe) new players.

It is up to the really knowable people of this board to determine exactly how the staff and MSU could have avoided the crunch that did occur.

r

Post by **rtb** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:35 pm

Good point, but luckily the rule is gone now so we don't have to worry about it in the future. As far as the coaching staff goes, we are 3-0 in conference play and looking to have a great year. Everyone who is a Bobcat fan is supporting the team and coaches as they make their run through the Big Sky. We can discuss coulda/woulda/shoulda and what direction the program goes after the season.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:37 pm

rtb wrote:Good point, but luckily the rule is gone now so we don't have to worry about it in the future. As far as the coaching staff goes, we are 3-0 in conference play and looking to have a great year. Everyone who is a Bobcat fan is supporting the team and coaches as they make their run through the Big Sky. We can discuss coulda/woulda/shoulda and what direction the program goes after the season.

Yep, great point. I'm glad the rule is gone as well. It should make for a lot more stability in the system and hopefully some great seasons to come. All CATS fans are behind this team! We have a good core in place and need to get some good 4 year players next year to mesh with the JC's as well. We need these games this week CATS! NO LETDOWN! .. HUGE GAMES.

orsalak · Post by **orsalak** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:34 pm

Rtb, that is what fans do they discuss coulda/woulda/shoulda. This would be a boring place if we didn't do that.

Post by **rtb** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:47 pm

I know I know, its just the discussion about Mick has gotten old in a hurry on here and I would like to see it go away so that we can focus on other things for now. Just my preference, but if people want to keep rehashing the idea they can do that.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:20 pm

The 5/8 rule effected every coach. Thats why you recruit players that don't have health issues, can get passing grades, and have high character. I am a Durham fan and went to school with Mick but he had to recruit under the same rules as everyone else and he did not do a good job. Way too many premature losses to be a coincedence. This one is on the coach not on luck.

orsalak · Post by **orsalak** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:35 pm

Yes the talk has gotten old about Mick, but that shows some people really don't like the job he is doing. I have had complaints in the past about him myself. Before I call for his head though I would like to give him one more year without the 5/8 rule. If he puts together another schedule like the one we had this year and is in the top half of the conference (this year and next) then I will be happy.

Bobcat4Ever · Post by **Bobcat4Ever** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:25 pm

What I see here (thanks for the player history) and what has been keeping a lot of fans disguised as blue seats in the Brick (what a name for basketball, might as well call it the Airball) is a lack of quality recruits, guys who are sound and good students and are committed to sticking around for four years. The 5/8 rule should have been an advantage, because let's face it, NBA defections are the least of the worries around here.

This patching with junior college transfers is self-perpetuating, once the classes get out of balance. Where are the four-year players, who stay in the pipeline and keep the team going? As a fan in the seats was overheard to say "I feel as much commitment to these temporary teams as they feel to MSU -- not much". It is truly hard to identify with a team that has experienced such major turnover the last few years. It was not always so.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as happy as anybody to see this latest team having some success, but I think some solid four-year recruits are needed to keep this program on track and get the fan's interest back. Perhaps the success of the patch job this year will help the recruiting efforts.

HelenaCat · Post by **HelenaCat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:15 pm

Bobcat4Ever wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm as happy as anybody to see this latest team having some success, but I think some solid four-year recruits are needed to keep this program on track and get the fan's interest back. Perhaps the success of the patch job this year will help the recruiting efforts.

I agree with this comment. I am hopeful that this year's team was recruited by Mick out of necessity when the 5/8 rule got rescinded, but he goes back to recruiting mostly HS kids with an occasional JC instead of the other way around. I am also very hopeful that this team can continue to win and have a successful season, which in turn can only help recruiting.