What would it take to turn MSU into a basketball power?

[SonomaCat]

This is a total brainstorming open question, but something I've thought a lot about over the years. What would it take to turn MSU into a Gonzaga or similar program that not only competes with the traditional powers, but actually becomes a perennial power?

Obviously, basketball is a much level playing field than football, as small schools can and do compete quite well with huge programs every year. It so much easier to get 8 to 10 quality players for a basketball team than it is to compile 80 quality players to compete at the highest levels of football.

So all of that established, how would MSU climb out of obscurity and make itself into a national power?

Is it money? If MSU raised as much money for basketball as we do for football to upgrade facilities and recruiting budgets, would that potentially get us there?

Is it all about finding an exceptional coach that can recruit those amazing players from across the country/world and get them to play together to maximize their talents?

Is it just impossible because such players wouldn't want to come to a place like Bozeman (a theory I somewhat reject out of hand, especially keeping in mind the kinds of towns a lot of the current basketball powers call home -- I think Bozeman is a step up from many of them)?

Would it require a change of conferences? Does the idea of playing lots of directional schools in front of small crowds all year long hurt our chances to landing the top recruits?

[Old Skool Cat]

Recruiting big men that can play, period. Under the leadership of Huse and Durham, the program just either has not been willing or has not been capable of recruiting big men. And I don't think it's a money thing, or a "better place to play" thing or even a "better school" thing. The other day I was looking at the rosters of all the Big Sky schools, and we are among the smallest. ISU has three guys at 6'11" or better and they can all play. UM has Qvale and Selvig - great players with tremendous size. You can't tell me that either of those places have any tremendous advantage over MSU in b-ball recruiting! You have to have good interior play to win championships, period. When you go cold from shooting on the perimeter, which the Cats do quite often, you have to be able to move the ball inside and score. We just do not have that ability, nor have we in many years. MSU will continue to struggle if we can't recruit solid post players.

[ilovethecats]

cool question BAC. i think personally you need a little of all of the things you mentioned but I think you also need some luck on your side. gonzaga wasn't doing anything special when they began to see success. but they were fortunate enough to recruit kids that went under the radar that ended up being very good players. once you get a little success, getting better players is easier. those better players make you more successful. before you know it you're landing prize recruits, making a name for yourself nationally, expanding your stadium, and it tends to snowball from there.

i think for us it all needs to start with coaching. and by "us", i mean schools like msu and the rest of the big sky conference. you get the right coach in place who is capable of recruiting, you never know when you are going to land that big name that will propel your program.

right now i think the griz are right on the verge. people don't realize what a great basketball program they are because of all of their football success. but they make it to the big dance more than anyone, and tinkle has a reputation around the northwest for being a very, very good recruiter. i don't think he's dissapointing so far.

i think all it takes to get the ball rolling is one magical season. a season where there is no doubt that you're the best team in the big sky followed by a win or two in the dance. you do that and you'll have a shot at that one guy you might not have had a shot at before. better players means more wins which means more succes. but it all starts with coaching imo.

[LTown Cat]

Blake Griffin.

[ilovethecats]

Blake Griffin.

[BelgradeBobcat]

I think the school to look to as a model is Utah State. They're a land grant school, in a relatively small and isolated town, and they have a football team as well.
Gonzaga is so different from us being a private school with no football.

The Big Sky has never had a team go at the national level for a sustained period of time. I imagine the reason is if a Big Sky team gets really good-that coach moves on to another job.

Both Gonzaga and Utah State have managed to hold on to their coaches. Though Monson got it going at Gonzaga, Few appears to have been the brains behind the outfit the whole time.

Coaching makes the difference in basketball.

Why has MSU struggled? Look where our past coaches have gone. Not one since Ott Romney in the 20's has moved up to a bigger job. All other coaches have either retired here (Breeden and Craft), gotten fired (Juarez), taken a lateral move and not really succeeded (Starner), or took a demotion (Haroldson, Durham). Compare our coaching tree to the griz or even Weber State...it's quite a difference.

I hoped and still hope that Huse is the guy to take it up a notch...but so far it isn't happening.

[wbtfg]

I think part of it is just the culture of the state/community.

Right now montana is a football crazy state.

[AlphaOAlum]

Not one since Ott Romney in the 20's has moved up to a bigger job. All other coaches have either retired here (Breeden and Craft), gotten fired (Juarez), taken a lateral move and not really succeeded (Starner), or took a demotion (Haroldson, Durham). Compare our coaching tree to the griz or even Weber State...it's quite a difference.

One might say that MSU is where good coaches go... and stall out. Replace the names, and you've got the coaching history of the football program too. I sincerely hope Ash breaks the cycle.

[SonomaCat]

Belgrade: So do you think if, for example, MSU had an endowment in place that allowed it to pay, say, $500K to its head basketball coach (men and women ... I assume there would need to be parity for Title IX purposes), that MSU might be able to attract and retain a stellar coach, and that may in itself put us over the top?

If that is the case, it would seem like a pretty good investment for the school to make (as I have to imagine having a winning program would bring in far more revenue that the status quo).

[ImagineSanta]

I think the school to look to as a model is Utah State. They're a land grant school, in a relatively small and isolated town, and they have a football team as well.
Gonzaga is so different from us being a private school with no football.
The Big Sky has never had a team go at the national level for a sustained period of time. I imagine the reason is if a Big Sky team gets really good-that coach moves on to another job.

Both Gonzaga and Utah State have managed to hold on to their coaches. Though Monson got it going at Gonzaga, Few appears to have been the brains behind the outfit the whole time.

Coaching makes the difference in basketball.

Why has MSU struggled? Look where our past coaches have gone. Not one since Ott Romney in the 20's has moved up to a bigger job. All other coaches have either retired here (Breeden and Craft), gotten fired (Juarez), taken a lateral move and not really succeeded (Starner), or took a demotion (Haroldson, Durham). Compare our coaching tree to the griz or even Weber State...it's quite a difference.

I hoped and still hope that Huse is the guy to take it up a notch...but so far it isn't happening.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING revolves around basketball here, while at MSU, 90% revolves around football. They have so much dedicated to just basketball and it blows away any other sport on campus. I don't think MSU will ever be GU because football is much more important and it always will be. I just don't see it happening, and I don't see it happening at UM to the point of GU. On egriz, they were proclaiming that UM would beat GU because of their down year. I bet $10 that GU would win by more than 15. The Big Sky will probably not be more than just a one and done NCAA tourney conference, but you never know.

[SonomaCat]

But if MSU had a successful basketball team, I imagine that, during basketball season, basketball would get the full attention of the community/school/state.

It's kind of a chicken/egg thing, isn't it?

[GrizinWashington]

In my opinion, to be a legit contender on the national level (ala Gonzaga) takes 4 things:

1. Luck/Magic
2. Uncovered gems
3. The ability to play anyone/anywhere
4. Money


1. If you look at the Zags, their program really began to take off with a deep tournament run as an 11 or 12 seed. That "magical" season can give a program a great deal of attention, and pretty soon not only are top recruits considering it, but a few of the team's game start popping up on ESPN the next season.

2. The ability to find one or two overlooked recruiting gems. The Zags were notorious for this their first few years as a "darling". They took guys who were not heavily recruited nationally and watched them blossom into stars. I truly think you're starting to see this happen more and more in the BSC, with Lillard and Cherry being two examples.

3. After a few successful tournament runs, the Zags were willing to play top teams, usually on the road or at neutral sites in tournaments. While those didn't always equate to wins, they did create even more exposure for the program, a substantial number of games on ESPN, and the perception that it was a national program, probably a few years ahead of when it actually was.

4. Money is pretty self-explanatory. But it costs big-time money to be a consistent contender on the national scene. Someone mentioned Utah State, and while I would consider them a fringe member of the national contender scene, compare Stew's salary with anyone's in the BSC and you'll start to get a sense of the need for money.

[CatBlitz]

If there's one thing I can think of off the top of my head that has hurt us, is not finding an adequate replacement for Danny Sprinkle (coach).

[rtb]

One thing the I think would help, but isn't the panacea is money to build a basketball facility. If you look at some of the more exciting environments in college basketball they are small facilities where the crowd is close to the court which makes the environment more exciting for players and fans, and also creates some demand for tickets. Look at where Gonzaga played until recently. I think the atmosphere inside the field house is one of the most boring in all of college basketball. While that isn't the only thing needed I think it would help in recruiting better players and drawing more interest from the community. It would be awesome to see the inside of the Brick remodeled into a basketball facility. However, then you lose the ability to have indoor track, rodeo, and monster trucks. The last I could live with out, but we do need an indoor track and a place for rodeo. The solution more money to build an indoor football and track facility, money to build a fancy indoor rodeo arena at the Gallatin Fairgrounds, and money to renovate the Brick.

Then, with the right coach and players the basketball scene at MSU could truly be top notch!

[ImagineSanta]

In my opinion, to be a legit contender on the national level (ala Gonzaga) takes 4 things:

1. Luck/Magic
2. Uncovered gems
3. The ability to play anyone/anywhere
4. Money


1. If you look at the Zags, their program really began to take off with a deep tournament run as an 11 or 12 seed. That "magical" season can give a program a great deal of attention, and pretty soon not only are top recruits considering it, but a few of the team's game start popping up on ESPN the next season.

2. The ability to find one or two overlooked recruiting gems. The Zags were notorious for this their first few years as a "darling". They took guys who were not heavily recruited nationally and watched them blossom into stars. I truly think you're starting to see this happen more and more in the BSC, with Lillard and Cherry being two examples.

3. After a few successful tournament runs, the Zags were willing to play top teams, usually on the road or at neutral sites in tournaments. While those didn't always equate to wins, they did create even more exposure for the program, a substantial number of games on ESPN, and the perception that it was a national program, probably a few years ahead of when it actually was.

4. Money is pretty self-explanatory. But it costs big-time money to be a consistent contender on the national scene. Someone mentioned Utah State, and while I would consider them a fringe member of the national contender scene, compare Stew's salary with anyone's in the BSC and you'll start to get a sense of the need for money.

Who are the Zags playing this weekend? Memphis, at the Arena. They are getting east coast teams to come out here to play.
We had a guest speaker on Monday from IMG World, they are a sports agency on a lot of campuses and he said one thing about GU that kinda stood out was that they had the #1 TV package in the country. The amount of national exposure they get is astounding. Local, WA, and national is pretty good.
Here's a look at their recruiting for next year. I'm impressed. Gary Bell, Jr. turned down UW to come to GU.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... class/2011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SonomaCat]

One thing the I think would help, but isn't the panacea is money to build a basketball facility. If you look at some of the more exciting environments in college basketball they are small facilities where the crowd is close to the court which makes the environment more exciting for players and fans, and also creates some demand for tickets. Look at where Gonzaga played until recently. I think the atmosphere inside the field house is one of the most boring in all of college basketball. While that isn't the only thing needed I think it would help in recruiting better players and drawing more interest from the community. It would be awesome to see the inside of the Brick remodeled into a basketball facility. However, then you lose the ability to have indoor track, rodeo, and monster trucks. The last I could live with out, but we do need an indoor track and a place for rodeo. The solution more money to build an indoor football and track facility, money to build a fancy indoor rodeo arena at the Gallatin Fairgrounds, and money to renovate the Brick.

Then, with the right coach and players the basketball scene at MSU could truly be top notch!

Just got me thinking ... if MSU were to use funds to build a new basketball facility (which I agree would be a great improvement), I wonder if that would remove the need to build a new indoor practice facility (as the fieldhouse could play that role)? Or is there too much other stuff (indoor track, etc.) going on during football season that would make that approach impractical?

[ilovethecats]

a point is being missed here. the question was asked, what would it TAKE to TURN msu into a basketball power. no one is disputing that gonzaga is regarded as a very good program. i don't think they belong in the category of the dukes and carolinas of the country but that is another issue. the fact is that even when gonzaga had stockton running the point...theyr weren't a basketball school. hell, in the mid nineties they were still more known for wonens soccer and mens baseball before anything else.

then along came a couple guys barely recruited, matt santangelo and richie frahm and they shocked the country almost going to the final four! that was the season they needed and their program is still building on that. that season allowed them to start getting very good recruits and maintaining success. they started playing top teams all over the country...and winning. of course they don't have to do that as much any more. now they have enough respect around the country where very good teams will travel to spokane.

we're not comparing the cats to the zags right now. we're trying to figure out how to be like the zags of '97....

[ImagineSanta]

a point is being missed here. the question was asked, what would it TAKE to TURN msu into a basketball power. no one is disputing that gonzaga is regarded as a very good program. i don't think they belong in the category of the dukes and carolinas of the country but that is another issue. the fact is that even when gonzaga had stockton running the point...theyr weren't a basketball school. hell, in the mid nineties they were still more known for wonens soccer and mens baseball before anything else.

then along came a couple guys barely recruited, matt santangelo and richie frahm and they shocked the country almost going to the final four! that was the season they needed and their program is still building on that. that season allowed them to start getting very good recruits and maintaining success. they started playing top teams all over the country...and winning. of course they don't have to do that as much any more. now they have enough respect around the country where very good teams will travel to spokane.

we're not comparing the cats to the zags right now. we're trying to figure out how to be like the zags of '97....

I know, I just wanted to dote on my current university.
I already said though, that I don't see it ever happening.
I think a good place to start would be broadcasting the games locally on one of the local channels. Create more exposure.

[jagur1]

Money. You spend enough you eventualy will have a good team. May never win a championship but if you spend enough MONEY you will be good every year. New Arena, New coach, Pay the good coach to stay, Unlimited travel budget to get the players, Big staff paid with lots of money to go get the kids, Money from Alumni so your fancy out of state players can get some love, Money to get the Cats on TV every night, Money to move to the MWC, Money to improve the school so you will fit in with the Mountain West, Money to improve the school so the PAC 10 thinks you belong. I'm thinking 30 Million a year for BB. 30 Million a year for other sports, 900 million in building upgrades and another 900 Million for school upgrades not to mention 100 million a year for general school funds. I'm talking hanging with KU not Gonzaga who no one will remember in 10 years. Did I mention MONEY. Texas spends 100 million a year on sports not including buildings. MSU is going to have to get a lot bigger if you want to hang with those guys.

[ilovethecats]

Money. You spend enough you eventualy will have a good team. May never win a championship but if you spend enough MONEY you will be good every year. New Arena, New coach, Pay the good coach to stay, Unlimited travel budget to get the players, Big staff paid with lots of money to go get the kids, Money from Alumni so your fancy out of state players can get some love, Money to get the Cats on TV every night, Money to move to the MWC, Money to improve the school so you will fit in with the Mountain West, Money to improve the school so the PAC 10 thinks you belong. I'm thinking 30 Million a year for BB. 30 Million a year for other sports, 900 million in building upgrades and another 900 Million for school upgrades not to mention 100 million a year for general school funds. I'm talking hanging with KU not Gonzaga who no one will remember in 10 years. Did I mention MONEY. Texas spends 100 million a year on sports not including buildings. MSU is going to have to get a lot bigger if you want to hang with those guys.

i agree jag but i still think winning trumps everything. texas puts way more money into their sports than say...kansas, but ku will always get the prized recruits because they win. look at oregon. i don't think you will find another school who gets flooded with as much money as they do, and they rarely even win the pac-10. no question if some billionaire just gave us a 100 million for our hoops program it would be incredible help. but if you're not getting it done on the floor it doesn't matter.

gonzaga gets WAY more money than they did 10-15 years ago, and they do because they won on the court first. rich people are rich for a reason. you won't find many that will just pump cash into a losing program. we have many very wealthy people right here in bozeman that would consider spending more money on the cat basketball.....once cat basketball proves it is committed to winning. i just haven't seen that i don't think the funds will come until it's obvious.

i do agree money is a major, major factor though.