The Bobcat Nation

this is a topic i brought up some time ago on the montana board, before the rise of krysko and the reformation of durham. here's my thesis.
think basketball schools. think wake forest, duke, north carolina, kansas, indiana, kentucky, arizona, connecticut, syracuse, illinois, maryland. now notice: none of these schools is strong in football--or only sporadically so. now consider the many football powerhouses (miami, virginia tech, byu, nebraska, colorado, notre dame, usc, florida state) whose basketball teams have had little or only espisodic success over recent decades.
i'm wondering: does support and enthusiasm for one major sport at a school drain enthusiasm and support from the other major sport? could football at the montana schools take a major hit if suddenly the cats and the griz were to revive their storied basketball histories and resume their intense court rivalry? or if either team were to make a dramatic run in the ncaa tournament, a la gonzaga or nevada, a run against major schools that would make the football rivalries with smaller 1-aa schools seem picayunish?
i ask, because i believe the way that both krysko and durham are signing kids that were looked at or even sought by bigger programs is about to heat up basketball interest at both schools. and i know this: you can name very few schools where basketball and football really thrive at the same time.

Interesting topic of discussion, thought I'd chime in. The key element you need to keep in mind is that we are a IAA football school. How many IAA schools even have a solid basketball program? Villanova is about the only one that comes to mind.

I think a school with limited fanbases for both sports (such as any BSC school, except maybe the Griz) won't have to worry about devoting all their passion to one sport.

Now if either school becomes a "mid-major" in college basketball and has consistently ranked 8-12 seed teams, this might all change. I think since we are IAA and only need 13k in the stands at football games to pack the place, I think we could easily run two sucessful programs.

Well put Celtic Cat.

This being good in 2 sports would be a nice problem to have. I couldn't be more excited with the way the 2 programs appear to be headed right now!

Well Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Louisville are a couple of school that I can think of right away that has good FB & BB.

I don't think that it is a fan-based problem to have both good FB & BB. I think that it is just plain hard to be really good at both sports at the same time.

Not sure I agree. The following teams were all in the NCAA BB tournament (most in the Top 1/2 of the seedings and all were in the top 30 football programs:

Texas
Alabama
LSU
Georgia Tech
Michagan State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Utah
Iowa State
California
Pitt
Virginia
Texas Tech
Florida

And typically UCLA is always in this list, just having a short down period on football, but it's easy for them to recruit and should start coming back. And this list did not even include Michigan.

Typically the LARGE schools do well in football because it takes MONEY to win (Facilities, Advertising, Alumni, pay coaches, player payoffs).

In basketball, it all centers on the coaches. There are more than enough players to go around (because it only takes two or three studs to win). And the very best players are going pro after 1 or 2 years so it's a constant rebuild of the very top teams (i.e. North Carolina and Duke)

As I said, it centers on the very good coaches in basketball and some coaches have an ego that they don't want to be at a school where they are not top dog (which means a weaker football program where the football coach is not top dog in the school). So some weaker football schools (like Duke) do get a top level coach.

As far as MSU with Football and Basketball. I think we know who has the egos between Coach Krammer and Coach Durham. So there will be no problem, they can both co-exist.

MSU has always been and I believe will always be a football first school. Basketball as a whole is losing market share to football at all levels and I believe it is due to the changes that have occured over the years in how basketball is played. It used to be more of a pure sport. The sport today has become more physical and more controlled by the officiating than the play. The outcome of many games has been determined by officiating bias, inexperience and capability. Look at games played in Butte vs other towns or home vs away game numbers in the BCS.

I used to play pick-up games five nights per week at some of the better gyms around Minneapolis. These were very serious and competitive games that were officiated by the players. We would average one foul per game. Why, because most fouls are either not fouls or have little impact on the game.

Why does a defender stand flat footed with his hands in the air rather than jumping to defen a shot? Because jumping will almost garauntee a foul being called.

Some simple rules to improve basketball:

1. If an offensive player leans in for a shot or into a player no foul is called regardless of the contact.
2. Offensive players who back into a defender are called for a foul.
3. If the shot is blocked no foul is called ragardless of impact.
4, No foul is ever called unless it is obvious. The goal is to reduce the number of fouls called to 1/3 of the number called today.
5. Call a technical foul on a coach every time he says anything to an official unless at a timeout. Minimize coaches "working" the officials.

gtapp wrote:Some simple rules to improve basketball:

1. If an offensive player leans in for a shot or into a player no foul is called regardless of the contact.
2. Offensive players who back into a defender are called for a foul.
3. If the shot is blocked no foul is called ragardless of impact.
4, No foul is ever called unless it is obvious. The goal is to reduce the number of fouls called to 1/3 of the number called today.
5. Call a technical foul on a coach every time he says anything to an official unless at a timeout. Minimize coaches "working" the officials.

Interesting set of changes. Not sure if it would work. This might work at the a friendly neighborhood game but not with the players now.

examples, item 3 would result in no layup ever being made. The players now have 40 inch jump. Most shots could be touched and it there is no foul to stop the agressive approach to the block, wow.

On 4. The non-obvious fouls are generally more effective than the obviously ones. Holding a player is no totally obvious to the fans, but has a huge impact.

Rule 2 counter dicts 4

The rules listed would change it from an atheltic game to a muscle game. Most of the fouls eliminated would allow less skilled players to remove the advantage that very quick and very good players have. There would be a ton of holding in other words.

I agree there are to many fouls, but you still want the talented players to show all the skills they have. That is the beauty of the game.

I tend to agree on everthing gtapps post. When Craft and Sweeney were in Bozo, we were both. I think back to Craft's teams, when Heathcote arrived over there, Boise State under Dye and all the Weber and ISU teams and feel that the Big Sky had some of the early leaders for the physical play the major schools now play. Hate to get off topic...but...as long as that's the direction...I doubt Gonzaga or Nevada would be enjoying the success they have today if they hadn't changed with the rest of the country. I'd rather watch basketball than free throw shooting contests. It's closer to football

gtaap: you may be right about the overall ratings between basketball and football (which could have something to do with the retirement of michael jordan) but march madess remains a huge ratings and attendance success, as well as my favoirte sporting event. i love the emotions, the sudden-death aspect, and the fact all schools--however small--get a shot.
why college football does not have a playoff system is beyond me.

Cat Grad wrote:I tend to agree on everthing gtapps post. When Craft and Sweeney were in Bozo, we were both. I think back to Craft's teams, when Heathcote arrived over there, Boise State under Dye and all the Weber and ISU teams and feel that the Big Sky had some of the early leaders for the physical play the major schools now play. Hate to get off topic...but...as long as that's the direction...I doubt Gonzaga or Nevada would be enjoying the success they have today if they hadn't changed with the rest of the country. I'd rather watch basketball than free throw shooting contests. It's closer to football

I thought there was great 'team' basketball team in this years tournament. It was awesome basketball this year! One of the best tournaments ever in my opinion. Illinois/Michigan State/Arizona/Kentucky/Duke/Wake all were great passing/shooting teams this year. I think the play actually has gotten less physical due to the amount of teams that shoot the 3 point shot. Those type teams just don't draw the fouls like some of the teams that don't shoot the 3 and pound it inside. It is 2 different types of styles and philosophies. I like physical play/rebounding under the basket myself and think it meshes very nicely with the outside 3 point shot we have currently.

Cat Grad wrote:I tend to agree on everthing gtapps post. ..... I'd rather watch basketball than free throw shooting contests. It's closer to football

You are trying to fix basketball refereeing by changing the rules to football. The three point shot has helped open that game which is great (so teams cannot sit in a zone), but you have to protect the talented players.

The coaches will take advantage of rules, no matter what they are. If you make it harder to get fouls, the players will increase their intensity and agressiveness to that level and the number of fouls will stay the same, they will just be that much rougher.

The muscle guys on teams have 5 fouls and they are expected to use 4 of them over the course of the game (this is not gym rat ball where you are friends). This is college basketball where a coach (such as the respected coach at Temple) will tell a player to in essence "Take out" the best player on the other team. College basketball is MONEY and Winning. You constantly hear that was a good foul, you can't just let a team have an easy basket. God protect the fool that goes in for a layup if the rules change so it's not a foul if the defender can touchs the ball.

What I have seen is players adjust to the level fouls are called. A GOOD Referee sets the level of play that will be accepted in the first five minutes and keeps it consistent. A team will typically have 8 to 12 fouls per half. If the referee calls it tight or loose, the number does not really change. The only thing that changes is the roughness of the game. A skill team likes a tight game and a musle team with less skill likes a loose game so it because their advantage.

I agree with gtapp in one regard for sure. When an offensive player jumps directly into a standing defensive player to get a foul called in the act of shooting, is a bunch of BS. That should NEVER be called. It is the shooter that is initiating the contact. I hate it when this gets called. Especially when a shooter gets a defender airborn and then jumps into him!!! Remember when a shooter faked going up to get the defender out of the way so that he could get a clean shot at the bucket??