Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Congrats to the BG Women. What a fantastic year once again. Coach Miller and his staff and players are just phenomenal.

What I don't understand is why can't we ask for that for our Men's Team. It seems like 50% of this sight is okay with our results this year and with the direction Coach Orr is taking with this team. I read comments like this was a 'good year', a year that provided 'a lot of satisfaction as a fan'...I am paraphrasing. The fourth year of program should be the culmination of success and I personally don't like to hear, just wait til next year, the team is young, we got some studs, yada, yada, yada.

I'm excited where our football program is with Coach Clawson, he has two more years in my book to have a team that's in the heat of MAC Championship contention. I don't think giving four years to any program to succeed or else, is too short amount of time.

I am open to listening to answers to this question, and I welcome the debate:
Why can't we expect our men to be as successful as our women?

-or even-

Obviously our Women's program is special, so answer me this question. Why does it seem like asking for our Men's program to be half as successful as our women's program is too big an ask?

I'm from Detroit. I've lived through the acceptance of mediocrity of Lions Football and THEN Matt Millen running the team further into the depths of hell for eight years. I didn't want him around after 3, I'm sorry if I'm not patient or come across as a negative pain in the tuchas, but I just want our team to be in the 'F'in' tournament and I just want it sooner than later.

I truly appreciate the opportunity to vent - I love and respect this site. I love BG and our athletic program even more, and especially BG Men's Hoops. I just want to see something worth being excited about, and right now, I feel like I've felt most of the last decade...very disappointed.

You are not alone with your frustration. I don't have an answer and I'm not sure anyone does. I do know that several individuals have pumped money into the new arena and into the future of the program. I hope I live long enough to enjoy Falcon basketball again as much as I did as a kid growing up in BG and as a young man. In the meantime, I'm still a fan and am looking forward to picking out a seat in the Stroh Center.

manager wrote:You are not alone with your frustration. I don't have an answer and I'm not sure anyone does. I do know that several individuals have pumped money into the new arena and into the future of the program. I hope I live long enough to enjoy Falcon basketball again as much as I did as a kid growing up in BG and as a young man. In the meantime, I'm still a fan and am looking forward to picking out a seat in the Stroh Center.

The new arena will be great, but there is no correlation within the MAC of a new facility leading to success. Eastern and Northern Illinois built very nice arenas, but their programs, and attendance, were better with the old buildings. It's questionable if Ball State's 11,000 seat arena has helped the program one bit. Central put more than $20 million into their facility and their future is bleak. Toledo finished the third year in their $30 million renovation and they've had back to back 4 win seasons. Ohio has a 13,000 seat Big Ten-type arena and has been to the NCAA Tournament 3 times in the last 20 years-not exactly dominant.

It's all about the head coach.

I was thinking about this yesterday during the Men's Final. Why is Kent successful and BG not? It can't be all coaching philosophy since Kent has had 4 head coaches since 1996. During that time they have had made 5 NCAA appearances and 5 likely to be 6 NIT appearances. Somehow it is partly system as well as the AD knowing who the best hire is for the situation. Here are the records for the last 4 head coaches at Kent.

1996-2001 Gary Waters 92-60 .605 Winning %. First two seasons were losing.
2001-2002 Stan Heath 30-6 .833
2002-2008 Jim Christian 138-57 .708
2008-Current Geno Ford 66-37 .641

Food for thought.

fredthefalcon wrote:I was thinking about this yesterday during the Men's Final. Why is Kent successful and BG not? It can't be all coaching philosophy since Kent has had 4 head coaches since 1996. During that time they have had made 5 NCAA appearances and 5 likely to be 6 NIT appearances. Somehow it is partly system as well as the AD knowing who the best hire is for the situation. Here are the records for the last 4 head coaches at Kent.

1996-2001 Gary Waters 92-60 .605 Winning %. First two seasons were losing.
2001-2002 Stan Heath 30-6 .833
2002-2008 Jim Christian 138-57 .708
2008-Current Geno Ford 66-37 .641

Food for thought.

I give Gary Waters total credit for that program. He took a dormat and setup the best program in the MAC the last decade. All the coaches there since have just been caretakers of his sucess. I wish Gary would have come to BG.

fredthefalcon wrote: 1996-2001 Gary Waters 92-60 .605 Winning %. First two seasons were losing.
2001-2002 Stan Heath 30-6 .833
2002-2008 Jim Christian 138-57 .708
2008-Current Geno Ford 66-37 .641

From these statistics it appears Kent is slowly slipping rather than building.

Rollo83 wrote:

fredthefalcon wrote:I was thinking about this yesterday during the Men's Final. Why is Kent successful and BG not? It can't be all coaching philosophy since Kent has had 4 head coaches since 1996. During that time they have had made 5 NCAA appearances and 5 likely to be 6 NIT appearances. Somehow it is partly system as well as the AD knowing who the best hire is for the situation. Here are the records for the last 4 head coaches at Kent.

1996-2001 Gary Waters 92-60 .605 Winning %. First two seasons were losing.
2001-2002 Stan Heath 30-6 .833
2002-2008 Jim Christian 138-57 .708
2008-Current Geno Ford 66-37 .641

Food for thought.

I give Gary Waters total credit for that program. He took a dormat and setup the best program in the MAC the last decade. All the coaches there since have just been caretakers of his sucess. I wish Gary would have come to BG.

You can start with Jim McDonald, Bob Nichols' right hand man. Until he went to KEnt Kent hadn't had a winning season in something like twenty years. He immediately made them competitive and showed the administration there that football wasn't everything.

h2oville rocket wrote:

Rollo83 wrote:

fredthefalcon wrote:I was thinking about this yesterday during the Men's Final. Why is Kent successful and BG not? It can't be all coaching philosophy since Kent has had 4 head coaches since 1996. During that time they have had made 5 NCAA appearances and 5 likely to be 6 NIT appearances. Somehow it is partly system as well as the AD knowing who the best hire is for the situation. Here are the records for the last 4 head coaches at Kent.

1996-2001 Gary Waters 92-60 .605 Winning %. First two seasons were losing.
2001-2002 Stan Heath 30-6 .833
2002-2008 Jim Christian 138-57 .708
2008-Current Geno Ford 66-37 .641

Food for thought.

I give Gary Waters total credit for that program. He took a dormat and setup the best program in the MAC the last decade. All the coaches there since have just been caretakers of his sucess. I wish Gary would have come to BG.

You can start with Jim McDonald, Bob Nichols' right hand man. Until he went to KEnt Kent hadn't had a winning season in something like twenty years. He immediately made them competitive and showed the administration there that football wasn't everything.

Was Kent a football power at the time of Jim McDonald? Just curious. That's a little before my time as a MAC fan and student ...

They were pretty good at football under Don James in the early 70's...by the time McDonald took over the hoops team in the 80's, they sucked again. McDonald did have a really nice run at Kent though...IIRC, UT's fortunes declined when he left.

h2oville rocket wrote:

Rollo83 wrote:

fredthefalcon wrote:I was thinking about this yesterday during the Men's Final. Why is Kent successful and BG not? It can't be all coaching philosophy since Kent has had 4 head coaches since 1996. During that time they have had made 5 NCAA appearances and 5 likely to be 6 NIT appearances. Somehow it is partly system as well as the AD knowing who the best hire is for the situation. Here are the records for the last 4 head coaches at Kent.

1996-2001 Gary Waters 92-60 .605 Winning %. First two seasons were losing.
2001-2002 Stan Heath 30-6 .833
2002-2008 Jim Christian 138-57 .708
2008-Current Geno Ford 66-37 .641

Food for thought.

I give Gary Waters total credit for that program. He took a dormat and setup the best program in the MAC the last decade. All the coaches there since have just been caretakers of his sucess. I wish Gary would have come to BG.

You can start with Jim McDonald, Bob Nichols' right hand man. Until he went to KEnt Kent hadn't had a winning season in something like twenty years. He immediately made them competitive and showed the administration there that football wasn't everything.

Jim McDonald had a couple of nice seasons but didn't really set the world on fire. In fact, he only won 19 games his last two years at Kent. And, we never won the MAC or advanced to teh NCAAs.

Here is his record...

82-83.....15-13
83-84.....15-14
84-85.....17-13
85-86.....11-16
86-87.....19-10
87-88.....10-18
88-89.....21-10
89-90.....21-8
90-91.....10-18
91-92.....9-19

Dave Grube coached at Kent the next four years before Waters got there and he never got them over the .500 mark.

Waters put that program on the map.

Kent also had one of the best ADs in Mid Major D1....

Rollo83 wrote:

h2oville rocket wrote:

Rollo83 wrote:

fredthefalcon wrote:I was thinking about this yesterday during the Men's Final. Why is Kent successful and BG not? It can't be all coaching philosophy since Kent has had 4 head coaches since 1996. During that time they have had made 5 NCAA appearances and 5 likely to be 6 NIT appearances. Somehow it is partly system as well as the AD knowing who the best hire is for the situation. Here are the records for the last 4 head coaches at Kent.

1996-2001 Gary Waters 92-60 .605 Winning %. First two seasons were losing.
2001-2002 Stan Heath 30-6 .833
2002-2008 Jim Christian 138-57 .708
2008-Current Geno Ford 66-37 .641

Food for thought.

I give Gary Waters total credit for that program. He took a dormat and setup the best program in the MAC the last decade. All the coaches there since have just been caretakers of his sucess. I wish Gary would have come to BG.

You can start with Jim McDonald, Bob Nichols' right hand man. Until he went to KEnt Kent hadn't had a winning season in something like twenty years. He immediately made them competitive and showed the administration there that football wasn't everything.

Jim McDonald had a couple of nice seasons but didn't really set the world on fire. In fact, he only won 19 games his last two years at Kent. And, we never won the MAC or advanced to teh NCAAs.

Here is his record...

82-83.....15-13
83-84.....15-14
84-85.....17-13
85-86.....11-16
86-87.....19-10
87-88.....10-18
88-89.....21-10
89-90.....21-8
90-91.....10-18
91-92.....9-19

Dave Grube coached at Kent the next four years before Waters got there and he never got them over the .500 mark.

Waters put that program on the map.

Now list the ten year record BEFORE McDonald came to Kent.

h2oville rocket wrote:

Rollo83 wrote:

h2oville rocket wrote:

Rollo83 wrote:

fredthefalcon wrote:I was thinking about this yesterday during the Men's Final. Why is Kent successful and BG not? It can't be all coaching philosophy since Kent has had 4 head coaches since 1996. During that time they have had made 5 NCAA appearances and 5 likely to be 6 NIT appearances. Somehow it is partly system as well as the AD knowing who the best hire is for the situation. Here are the records for the last 4 head coaches at Kent.

1996-2001 Gary Waters 92-60 .605 Winning %. First two seasons were losing.
2001-2002 Stan Heath 30-6 .833
2002-2008 Jim Christian 138-57 .708
2008-Current Geno Ford 66-37 .641

Food for thought.

I give Gary Waters total credit for that program. He took a dormat and setup the best program in the MAC the last decade. All the coaches there since have just been caretakers of his sucess. I wish Gary would have come to BG.

You can start with Jim McDonald, Bob Nichols' right hand man. Until he went to KEnt Kent hadn't had a winning season in something like twenty years. He immediately made them competitive and showed the administration there that football wasn't everything.

Jim McDonald had a couple of nice seasons but didn't really set the world on fire. In fact, he only won 19 games his last two years at Kent. And, we never won the MAC or advanced to teh NCAAs.

Here is his record...

82-83.....15-13
83-84.....15-14
84-85.....17-13
85-86.....11-16
86-87.....19-10
87-88.....10-18
88-89.....21-10
89-90.....21-8
90-91.....10-18
91-92.....9-19

Dave Grube coached at Kent the next four years before Waters got there and he never got them over the .500 mark.

Waters put that program on the map.

Now list the ten year record BEFORE McDonald came to Kent.

OK, you got me....

72-73.....10-16
73-74.....9-17
74-75.....6-20
75-76.....12-14
76-77.....8-19
77-78.....6-21
78-79.....13-14
79-80.....10-17
80-81.....7-19
81-82.....10-16

ZuluWarrior wrote:Congrats to the BG Women. What a fantastic year once again. Coach Miller and his staff and players are just phenomenal.

What I don't understand is why can't we ask for that for our Men's Team.

Well, to answer your question in my opinion, WBB and MBB are two totally different programs (and not just at BG).

WBB a young lady uses her brain when she picks a school. She goes to a place she will win, be a part of a great program (as Miller has obviously built), a good school. They use basketball as a means to an education, to be a part of something special (the team), and that's it. They don't have pipe dreams of making 'the league', they haven't been told how they're going to be (W)NBA superstars since they were 13. I've coached both boys and girls basketball at the high school level, they're just different. (That's not saying they aren't trying to become the best players they can be, and playing overseas if they can, but it's a generalization I think is fitting.)

What BG offers as a womans program is exactly what these young ladies are looking for. A great program w/ little turnover (transfers out, coaches leaving), that has a reputation of winning. That's why BG has players transfer IN, to be a part of the program.

Now what young men are looking for in a program is what's going to take them to the next level. What school will help them get to the NBA, Overseas contract, etc. as soon as possible.

BG has none of these things to offer. They have made one post season tournament in the last 6 years (i think, NIT loss to Creighton), haven't sent anyone to any level of basketball after college (that I know of). You have to remember, to these guys Antonio Daniels was graduating BG when they were born!

Now why can our men's program not have these things to offer? I think the main issue is that Kent, OU, Akron, Miami have all had more success in making the post season, as well as sending players to play professionally, and these young men are picking these schools over BG (The whole Mac East+Toledo are basically recruiting the same kids).

Unless you can land some real talent that has slipped through the cracks of other schools and become successful, you'll continue to be a .500 team, because the other schools you're competing against have more to offer these young men, and are more likely to provide them with what they want (exposure/professional contracts).

The issue is that usually kids that are talented but slip through, have other reasons as to why they're not being recruited (academic risk, behavioral risk). Then you bring those kids in, they don't last, and leave. Then your program is in constant turnover, making it less appealing.

We should expect the same from our mens team, but I just think the deck is stacked against them when compared to schools they're recruiting against. Hopefully the new Stroh Center, as well as Frack's donation, will help erase those shortcomings.

That's just my opinion. Sorry it's long winded, but I thought you brought up good questions and I'd thought I'd share my two cents.

Yes, many HS boys set their sites on the NBA or Europe, so they pick a school that's the best possible platform for that purpose. That would clearly explain why a kid picks Michigan State over BG. However, that does NOT explain why a kid picks one MAC school over another. Fact is, those schools you list haven't had any more success putting kids in the NBA or Europe than we have. That's just a simple fact.

From a recruiting standpoint, the MAC picks kids from between #150 and #600 in the nation. One MAC will land #222, #271, and #403. Another will get #188, #298, and #350, etc. Out of these players in the statistical "hump", trying to pick who will emerge as stars can be a crap shoot. I follow this stuff closely every year, I don't see one MAC school consistently outperforming others in garnering credentialed high-schoolers. Qualitatively, differences in MAC recruiting classes are damned small. The difference in the MAC is what happens after they arrive at the program. At BG under Dakich, they get pissed and leave. Under Orr, they don't seem to be driven to be tough/physical, get strong, and go for the kill in clutch situations.

The notion that our recruiting is bad, and that our overall situation is meaningfully less than the other MACs, is delusional and out of line with reality. I'd venture that if a Herb Sendek, Gary Waters, Ben Braun, Thad Matta, or Jim Callipari (UMass circa 1992), they'd have BG winning 23+ per year and in the dance within 2-3 years.