The Bobcat Nation

I was looking at the season stats and rosters today and am curious about next year. We lose Howard, Piepoli, Rush and now Cody Anderson. That leaves Singleton, Reid, and Allou that had what I would consider significant mintues. Johnson, Budnich & Trujeque all had between 205 and 292 minutes total for the season. McCall follows them with 194 minutes. Tor Anderson and Stephen Davis had less thatn 50 mnutes total and Brumwell and McIntyre were redshirts.

I did not see much of them play this year but it does not appear that we have much experience, scoring or size returning. For those of you that saw a lot of basetball I ask you, without being overly negative, What do we have to do to be competitive next year? Do some of our committed players look to contribute right away? Do the players that did not get a lot of minutes have what it takes to step up and take us up a level?

Well, going in, we'll be picked at the bottom of the Big Sky. Maybe we'll have some new recruits come through and the other guys will step up, but I'm afraid we face a steep, uphill basketball season for 11-12.

They better win 18-20 games, if not coaching change! Sorry, higher expectations!

Someone tell the AD before you give away a contract-extension there should be progress, and that includes winning games!

No more excuses, time to "raise the bar"

Wow. I think to look at next year's roster and demand 18 wins is asking a great deal.

As an outsider, I think you need to look at next year as a rebuilding year. Objectively speaking, it's unlikely that the Cats will compete for a conference title. If I were an MSU fan, I would consider the season a success if 2 things occur:

1. The youth on the team is allowed to develop. Frankly, I'd rather see younger kids get plenty of playing time, even if they aren't necessarily better than the elder classmen ahead of them. As I noted above, the likelihood that it's going to be a great team is low anyway, so use the season to develop.

2. There is consistent improvement throughout the year. If the players and the team progresses and is significantly better by year-end than by late November, I think you'd have to call it a successful season, no matter the overall record.

Every year since Huse has been here has pretty much been a rebuilding year except the first two when he had Mick's team.

Truly is sad that the Athletic Department appears to have abandoned MBB as a sport. Too bad. I agree with all of these posts, but unfortunately I don't think anyone cares. Despite nothing else to do in the winter and a huge opportunity to pack the fieldhouse and grow the sport's following the sole focus on football is driving my favorite spectator sport to the back of the bus and out the back window.

GrizinWashington wrote:Wow. I think to look at next year's roster and demand 18 wins is asking a great deal.

As an outsider, I think you need to look at next year as a rebuilding year. Objectively speaking, it's unlikely that the Cats will compete for a conference title. If I were an MSU fan, I would consider the season a success if 2 things occur:

1. The youth on the team is allowed to develop. Frankly, I'd rather see younger kids get plenty of playing time, even if they aren't necessarily better than the elder classmen ahead of them. As I noted above, the likelihood that it's going to be a great team is low anyway, so use the season to develop.

2. There is consistent improvement throughout the year. If the players and the team progresses and is significantly better by year-end than by late November, I think you'd have to call it a successful season, no matter the overall record.

"Consistent improvement throughout the year"? Are you kidding me? MSU teams have declined significantly during the course of the season, pretty much every year under Huse (and most seasons under Durham too, for that matter). I would be ecstatic if they could just maintain their level of play as the season progresses, let alone actually get better. And I'm not sure it should be referred to as a "rebuilding" year, as I would ask....rebuilding from what? Rebuilding implies that some level of success has been achieved, followed by a temporary step backwards, and then hopefully a return to prominence after that. In recent years, we haven't accomplished anything to be "rebuilt".

It also seems that some people defend Huse by citing our lack of talent, and I don't disagree that our talent is well below par. But isn't recruiting pretty much the most important attribute for a collegiate coach? Those who say that he gets the most out of a roster that is lacking in talent, seem to be giving him a pass on his failure to recruit adequate talent. It's OK to say that during the first 2-3 years of a coach's tenure, when he's playing with the previous coach's players, but not after a coach has been on the job for 5 years.

It's the Big Sky, so you're always just one player away from having a championship team. Maybe Huse will pick up a stud JC guy like Quadre Lollis or Damir Latovic? Probably not, but that's about all it takes. Keep in mind the BSC went 0-4 in the postseason this year, which has to be the worst post-season record of any conference in 2010-11. We score a couple big wins every year, like UM over UCLA, but this is just barely a mid-major conference IMO.

TomCat88 wrote:It's the Big Sky, so you're always just one player away from having a championship team. Maybe Huse will pick up a stud JC guy like Quadre Lollis or Damir Latovic? Probably not, but that's about all it takes. Keep in mind the BSC went 0-4 in the postseason this year, which has to be the worst post-season record of any conference in 2010-11. We score a couple big wins every year, like UM over UCLA, but this is just barely a mid-major conference IMO.

I agree with you completely on that last sentence, but might go even further. I think the BSC would have to be considered a "low-major" rather than a "mid-major". Mid-major conferences would have more than 3 tourney wins in the past 29 years. But I disagree that we're just one stud player away from having a BSC title team. Quadre Lollis was a great player, but that 1996 title team had several other very good players....Harrison, Sprinkle, Hatler, Leachman, Holmstadt. And 3 of those guys were Montana natives who were all 3 or 4-year starters. UM had a lot of good Montana kids playing for them during that era as well....Warhank, Siedensticker (sp), Spoja, just to name a few. I still don't understand what's happened to the Montana talent in the years since then?

So is it really the quality (talent) of the kids, height issues, other skills, or is it just that much harder to recruit in state kids to the bigger programs like MSU or UM? I know there were several really good players last year who opted to go Frontier. Is it because they think they'll see play time sooner?

classicat wrote:I know there were several really good players last year who opted to go Frontier.

Were they offered a D-I scholarship?

wbtfg wrote:

classicat wrote:I know there were several really good players last year who opted to go Frontier.

Were they offered a D-I scholarship?

I don't believe so. I don't know of any Montana kids in recent years who have turned down D-I scholarships to play in the Frontier, although there may be some who were invited to walk on at MSU or UM, but chose to go to the Frontier instead. Of the six Montana kids that I mentioned above, I believe all but Warhank were offered scholarships coming out of high school, and Warnank earned one very quickly with his play. I think part of it may be that there's more of an emphasis on athleticism versus "basketball skill" now, which may be misguided IMHO. This year's MSU team was sorely lacking in players who possessed the most fundamental of basketball skills....the ability to shoot the ball. All those Montana kids were good shooters, and most of them were great shooters.

I didn't mean that those players who went Frontier turned down scholarships, I'm sure that wouldn't happen. But why weren't they offered in the first place. Is the talent so sorely lacking in MT? Really? I know there is a HUGE difference in high school versus college ball but if they come from a program that teaches fundamentals and sees some success, can't they be coached on the other areas? Maybe it is because the college competition level is so high and there aren't alot of 7' graduates coming out of MT high schools, but seems to me that MSU is missing something.

classicat wrote:I didn't mean that those players who went Frontier turned down scholarships, I'm sure that wouldn't happen. But why weren't they offered in the first place. Is the talent so sorely lacking in MT? Really? I know there is a HUGE difference in high school versus college ball but if they come from a program that teaches fundamentals and sees some success, can't they be coached on the other areas? Maybe it is because the college competition level is so high and there aren't alot of 7' graduates coming out of MT high schools, but seems to me that MSU is missing something.

So which recruits over the past two years who msu/um should have offered but didnt?

Honestly I can only think of one off the top of my head and I'm not sure he would have gone to MSU anyway, but the Pearson kid from Big Sandy rather than Brumwell. Not picking on Brumwell, but watching the two of them play together, Pearson was by far the better all-around player, tons more talent, better shooter, ball handler, etc. I didn't hear if he was offered but I know Brumwell was before his senior season even started and I was shocked, honestly. With injuries, lack of intensity and seeming inability to play without Pearson, I didn't know what the scout was thinking. Pearson is at Northern and will likely do well, but I think MSU picked the wrong one. Time will tell.

Outside of that, not being a huge basketball aficionado, I'm not sure who else and I'm sure competing against football can be a factor too.

montana is a football state, and the hoops players just aren't there talent wise in the grand scheme of things. we have good players in this state, but if you compare our best to the best of washington, oregon, caliornia, texas, nevada, etc. they don't stack up. the biggest difference of all is the overall talent across the board is geting much better over the last 20 years. well actually...it get's better all the time but just looking at guys in this state over the last 20 or so years. and while i loved watching those cat and even griz teams of the nineties, there is not a doubt in my mind that some of those teams...while really good...had players on it that wouldn't sniff the court today. the overall parody of college basketball today is changing the game a lot. and it's great because we are witnessing a better product overall....but it hurts too because we are going to see less ad less montana kids playing for the cats and griz. but that is great for our local naia teams. these kids are getting really good. there are many kids playing at this level that are a fraction away from being a division one player. if you watched western or carroll play 15 years ago you probably weren't too impressed with the level of talent or competition. go watch a game now. these teams are good, and the brand of basketball is great. but the state of montana rarely has more than one or two kids capable of playing D1 NOW, in this decade. get those kids, and find talent elsewhere. then let those others around the state that are also great players go to carroll, rocky, tech, western, etc. and we'll watch that level of hoops continue to rise as well.

the overall parody of college basketball

I laughed at this malapropism! In my mind, I see the cast of SNL playing hoops!

ilovethecats wrote:

That made me smile, I made the same exact faux pas a couple months ago. In fact, I think it was on the same subject. You got off light, I had folks posting pictures of Leslie Neilson.

ya i got off easy. once i get rolling on a subject like that....mistakes are bound to roll!

that said, people must be agreeing to me in some sense if that's all they got after reading my post.

classicat wrote:Honestly I can only think of one off the top of my head and I'm not sure he would have gone to MSU anyway, but the Pearson kid from Big Sandy rather than Brumwell. Not picking on Brumwell, but watching the two of them play together, Pearson was by far the better all-around player, tons more talent, better shooter, ball handler, etc. I didn't hear if he was offered but I know Brumwell was before his senior season even started and I was shocked, honestly. With injuries, lack of intensity and seeming inability to play without Pearson, I didn't know what the scout was thinking. Pearson is at Northern and will likely do well, but I think MSU picked the wrong one. Time will tell.

Outside of that, not being a huge basketball aficionado, I'm not sure who else and I'm sure competing against football can be a factor too.

I seem to remember the Pearson issue was somewhat of an academic issue. Not sure but something in the back of my mind makes me think that was part of the issue.