New Coaches Big Sky

[n.ogdencat]

So far, I have been fairly impressed with the new coaches in the Sky. Their teams are organized, tough, and play fairly well together. Something we rarely see in Greeley and Bozeman. What does everyone think? Is the Sky getting better because of the new coaches?

Personally, I think ISU and NAU are going to get better and better. Weber had a really tough time dealing with ISU in the first half, and they were missing two of their better players. For me, the way to beat the Bengals is play a zone against them and make them beat you from the outside, which they can't do, but if they get some depth in the middle and find some shooters the Bengals will become a much better program. Same can be said of NAU and to a lesser degree SUU (the T-birds have decent outside shooters and have a couple of decent bigs). This might be the answer to the Sky's problems. It is far better having four or five teams competitive rather than having only three. :clap:

 

[LarrytheFarmer]

So far, I have been fairly impressed with the new coaches in the Sky. Their teams are organized, tough, and play fairly well together. Something we rarely see in Greeley and Bozeman. What does everyone think? Is the Sky getting better because of the new coaches?

Personally, I think ISU and NAU are going to get better and better. Weber had a really tough time dealing with ISU in the first half, and they were missing two of their better players. For me, the way to beat the Bengals is play a zone against them and make them beat you from the outside, which they can't do, but if they get some depth in the middle and find some shooters the Bengals will become a much better program. Same can be said of NAU and to a lesser degree SUU (the T-birds have decent outside shooters and have a couple of decent bigs). This might be the answer to the Sky's problems. It is far better having four or five teams competitive rather than having only three. :clap:

It wouldn't matter if Jerry Sloan was the Coach of the Bengals, they flat out CAN'T compete for recruits due to the fact they play in a Potato Cellar. Until they change their gym they WONT compete. :twocents:
Also who is this 3rd team you are saying is good?

 

[Skippy]

So far, I have been fairly impressed with the new coaches in the Sky. Their teams are organized, tough, and play fairly well together. Something we rarely see in Greeley and Bozeman. What does everyone think? Is the Sky getting better because of the new coaches?

Personally, I think ISU and NAU are going to get better and better. Weber had a really tough time dealing with ISU in the first half, and they were missing two of their better players. For me, the way to beat the Bengals is play a zone against them and make them beat you from the outside, which they can't do, but if they get some depth in the middle and find some shooters the Bengals will become a much better program. Same can be said of NAU and to a lesser degree SUU (the T-birds have decent outside shooters and have a couple of decent bigs). This might be the answer to the Sky's problems. It is far better having four or five teams competitive rather than having only three. :clap:

It wouldn't matter if Jerry Sloan was the Coach of the Bengals, they flat out CAN'T compete for recruits due to the fact they play in a Potato Cellar. Until they change their gym they WONT compete. :twocents:
Also who is this 3rd team you are saying is good?

ISU's recruiting is already improved under Evans -- they got three early signings, which almost never happened under O'Brien. Can the kids play? We shall see. They got a 6-9 center from the Czech Republic who is going to prep school in Houston, a 6-7 wing player from Wisconsin who was offered by Penn State, and a 6-5 wing from Colorado's state champions.

You're right though, recruiting to Pocatello isn't easy, and it's gotten more difficult because of the higher academic standards we've put in place since the APR issues. But Evans is a "players coach" -- the kids really love him, and if he can get a recruit on campus, I think he and the players have a good chance to convince them to sign. And as far as playing in Holt is concerned, well if we're recruiting against Portland State, UnC, Montana State, Sac State or NAU for a kid, the arena really isn't going to be a discerning factor. Especially since the kids typically visit in the early fall or spring when the basketball arena's not set up yet, and we just show them a picture of the ISU-Idaho game in the Dome from the Orlando Lightfoot days that had 7000 people packed in. :-D

 

[weberwildcat]

it woudl be amazing if isu can get that basketball facility built. the potato barn screws them over and no one wants to play in reid.

 

[Skippy]

it woudl be amazing if isu can get that basketball facility built. the potato barn screws them over and no one wants to play in reid.

It would be amazing, but there isn't even a basketball arena on the drawing board at ISU. (Sac has been "talking" about building one for several years now, but I haven't heard there's been any movement there, either). It's all about money, of course. ISU's best chance at getting a basketball arena was back around 1999-2000, when the university raised about $100 million as part of its centennial capital campaign. The Stephens Family expressed some interest in donating money for a basketball arena, but that money (about $30 million, I believe) got diverted by the president's wife for a performing arts center instead. It's a beautiful facility, but there are no three-point arcs painted in it anywhere. :-D

There have also been efforts to get the community, which is a large user of the Dome, to help pony up to pay for some upgrades to the facilities -- new bathrooms, concession area, a heating system that works, etc. but that bombed badly when it went to the voters. Some private money has been raised to remodel the lockerrooms and upgrade the turf, but as of right now I think the plan is to simply patch and scratch the Dome together as best we can until it eventually falls apart. The state of Idaho doesn't allow appropriated funds to be used for athletic facilities, and unless a very rich Bengal fan or two steps up, it will be a l-o-n-g time before there is a new basketball arena or football stadium.

Just out of curiousity, since I wasn't here when Weber built its basketball arena back in the 1970s, how did you guys fund it?

 

[oldrunner]

My recolection is that the Dee Family made a huge donation, there were thousands of smaller donations, and there may have been a loan from student activities money, that was paid back with ticket sales. I can't remember if there was any involvement from the State legislature; I don't think there was. The biggest single thing was the large donation from the Dee's, hense the name of the place. The Dee's have been great for our community and Weber State. :nod:

 

[oldrunner]

To me, the truest measure of a coach is how his team progresses through the season. Of course, the book is still out, but it appears like the Sky has some really good new coaches. ISU, SUU, and NAU have all shown improvement from where they started. It will be quite interesting to see how things will finish up. :twocents:

 

[jon]

Think all of the new coaches have done a really good job.

Jack Murphy is getting as good of recruits as anyone in the Big Sky over his first two years, and that might even include Weber State. It will take some time to build up the talent and experience level of the team, but I think within 3 years everyone will see Murphy as one of the top 2-3 coaches in the Big Sky.

Bengal visitor is totally right as well, ISU recruiting has already improved a ton under Evans. He has them playing pretty well for their talent level - after the first few games of the conference year, I thought ISU was going to easily finish last in the conference, and then they rattled off 3 straight wins. He is just a solid coach.

Nick Robinson has done a really nice job as well. There really isn't a ton of talent in Cedar City, and he has them competing every night. He just seems to instill a toughness in the club. We will see how well he will recruit, because I think he can win as long as he brings some talent in there.

Among the others:
- BJ Hill - I do really like him and think he is a good coach. UNC has had some rough times last year and this year... but remember, last year they had 1 senior (and no juniors), and this year they have no seniors. Lots of growing pains, but he is bringing in good talent (Derrick Barden is the best newcomer in the conference, and a guy Jordan Wilson is coming in next year who will be really good). I think UNC can be a top 4-5 program under Hill.
- Jim Hayford - Lots of rough times this year, but a lot of rebuilding and bringing in a new system. I think he is a really smart guy, and has shown to be able to think outside the box (look at all the international guys in the last class). Again, going to take a couple years to get the type of personnel needed for his system, but they will be a consistent winner in my opinion.
- Tinkle/Rahe - obviously have shown they can get their programs to win consistently.
- Brad Huse - Going to take a lot of work to get him into the next year. MSU will need a strong finish because he's in the final year of his deal.
- Brian Katz - Have my doubt about his ability, but it's tough to win in Sacramento. They have the talent to be top 4 this year, best talent they have had in a long time... but I'm not sure how good of a coach he is.
- Tyler Geving - Has done some nice things but not quite sold on him yet.
- Brian Jones - I am not the biggest Brian Jones fan but he has a solid team right now, and they always seem to get better as the season goes along. Still waiting to see if he can continue to have success outside of one recruiting class (who are juniors this year).

 

[Bluefin]

Geving no good
Hill no good
Huse no good
Hayford is a freaking moron...

Katz is better than all 4 put together

 

[oldrunner]

Katz is at a huge disadvantage. He has to recruit to a rat infested stink hole. UNC and PSU have a simmilar handicap. ISU's place looks great in comparison. I'm really shocked when some of these teams get a legit D1 player to sign on the line. :yikes:

 

[jon]

Geving no good
Hill no good
Huse no good
Hayford is a freaking moron...

Katz is better than all 4 put together

Katz has actually recruited a nice team there right now... just seems like he always runs guys off and makes poor coaching decisions in game.

Hill has had a rough stretch... but he is not even two years away from winning the Big Sky. Granted, not his players (but he was on the staff - it's not like he had no hand in building the program), but he still coached them to a conference title. Now, if in two years his teams haven't made the conference tournament, then it might be time for UNC to evaluate, because the talent level will be there. But right now it's more than premature to label him a failure.

Same for Hayford... he won huge at the D3 level, and so far has been able to recruit good players. Venky Jois, a freshman, leads the conference in rebounds and blocked shots and averages 13 per game. He has another freshman starting now at PG, and another as sixth man. He is changing to a style reliant on fast pace and three-pointers (and a lot of them), and it takes some time to get the right personnel in there for that.

Let me put it this way... if in 2-3 years we look back and say Hill and Hayford were failures, I will be shocked.

 

[n.ogdencat]

Personally, I think the two weakest coaches in the conference are Geving and Huse. The rest have their abilities and definite weaknesses. It is really interesting seeing the specific teams in the conference and how they either improve or get worse. Geving has had talent and has usually under-performed. I think PSU keeps him, but... Huse...He is done. The Bobcat faithful won't put up with much more from him. Even if he were to pull off a miracle and win the conference, I think the past couple of years is enough to ensure that he won't be getting re-signed. The rest, we will see. I like Murphy. I don't think they are getting the same talent as the Cats, but they do have some good looking recruits. UNCO...next year. But the talent of the better teams in the conference will be too much for them to keep up with. Weber and Montana are far too quick for the cubbies, but who knows, they could wow me. Sorry Jon, I'm not sold on them. I might be at the game on the 2nd. I look for you if I do decide to go.

 

[jon]

I agree that UNC can't compete with the Cats right now for sure. Svihovec has been up and down all year, and doesn't have the quickness defensively to hang with the better guards in the conference. Same for Unruh, he has been playing great offensively, but he doesn't have the athletic ability to guard the quicker guards. Ahtletically though, Barden and Huskisson can match up with anyone in the conference. Barden in particular has been great lately... 15 rebounds in 2 of the last 3, and the guy can jump higher than anyone in the conference. Huskisson, you don't know what he will give you every night, but he is another guy that can match up with anyone in the Big Sky.

With UNC, they aren't going to compete with WSU or Montana this year (think next year the Grizzlies will drop a bit though), but I think their ceiling is higher than anyone else among the other teams in the conference. Do they reach that ceiling? Well, probably not this year, because they aren't a very good road team and their defense has been suspect at best for most of the year. But it will be interesting.

Definitely let me know if you make it up on the 2nd, I'm planning to be at that game!

Agree with you about Huse and Geving.