The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

So is it a chicken and egg thing?

Recruit up to schedule up? Schedule up to recruit up?

And then where does priority fit? How to upgrade facilities, upgrade image, fill the existing 4800 seats and then move to bigger quarters?

Score a bigger scale coach?

Where does the league fit in? Can we move up with a SOS based on the MAC?

It seems to me it takes a whole bunch of stuff to make a significant move in the 2015 environment. Or are we just talking about being able to beat Akron in Cleveland?

(04-05-2015 08:16 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  So is it a chicken and egg thing?

Recruit up to schedule up? Schedule up to recruit up?

And then where does priority fit? How to upgrade facilities, upgrade image, fill the existing 4800 seats and then move to bigger quarters?

Score a bigger scale coach?

Where does the league fit in? Can we move up with a SOS based on the MAC?

It seems to me it takes a whole bunch of stuff to make a significant move in the 2015 environment. Or are we just talking about being able to beat Akron in Cleveland?

As you recruit up you schedule up. You elevate the schedule as you do your talent.
$ priority? I'd let the Admin decide that.

I think a facility like UA filled up or 2/3 full is a real home court advantage. I am not in favor of putting a court over ice off campus.

The ligg? Akron looks to schedule up some. They certainly recruit decent talent. Their issue has been head cases. Re the SOS of the MAC you are off setting that with a stronger OOC. The hope is that the ligg mandates improved schedules and others get on board. But you don't follow the lemmings off the cliff. Set the paradigm and execute it.

Gee whiz folks, it isn't complicated. You set the bar higher. You achieve that level and move it again. Is there a ceiling? Ya. But if you are cozy in the basement or lower end of the split level worrying about a ceiling is moot. This small minded alligator armed mentality is getting exhausting.

How do you explain us winning 23 games and going to the NCAA Tournament last year with the non-conference schedule we played? (Tennessee St., Alabama A&M, Cornell, Prairie View A&M, Siena Heights, etc.)

As somebody else suggested in an earlier post, there's more to it than simply "scheduling up".

Is the goal winning the MAC, or is it getting to a Final Four? Right now, we haven't provided the resources to our basketball program to sit here and say "we want more than an automatic bid to the NCAA Tourney". Once that happens, then sure I'll be all for scheduling up. But right now, we've made it pretty clear as an athletic dept. that we're throwing resources into football and hockey.

I think the "recruit up" part is a difficulty. Wouldn't you always be trying for the best players you can get. Then it comes to how do players decide where to go. Then you get to the chicken and egg stuff. We did recruit up a bit with Paul and Junior I suppose. Could say Kool I suppose. Lowe and Stainbrook not so much judging from their other offers. But some of the upgrades just promptly left. Did we promise too much, more than we could deliver?

It might not be complicated to think about, but it seems to be difficult to execute. Hawk has got it done with a low risk style of play and hard work and kids that stay the course. i'm not sure he knows how to glamorize the thing to bring in upgraded talent, or provide the environment to keep them if they come, or let pure shooters and hoopsters play their own game, take risks.

I once heard him answer a question, it had to do with having 9-10 good players, the question was, how do you keep them all happy? His answer was, I don't have to keep them happy, they have to keep ME happy. I liked that answer at the time but after the time of the defections you've got to rethink that a bit maybe we do need to keep elite players happy. Not the same old hard nosed world many of us old timers came up in.

Real difficult thing even if not complicated to visualize.

Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

(04-06-2015 02:53 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

Preach it Brah!

(04-06-2015 02:53 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

Can that be proven?

Why hasn't it worked for Oakland then?

Do you have any links to Gonzaga's schedules in the '90's?

I just think there's more to it than simply scheduling up until you start winning. Doesn't make sense. That's not how you get better as a program.

(04-06-2015 03:39 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:53 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

Can that be proven?

Why hasn't it worked for Oakland then?

Do you have any links to Gonzaga's schedules in the '90's?

I just think there's more to it than simply scheduling up until you start winning. Doesn't make sense. That's not how you get better as a program.

Hoek,

What do you suggest to get WMU to the dance frequently?

(04-06-2015 08:32 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  How do you explain us winning 23 games and going to the NCAA Tournament last year with the non-conference schedule we played? (Tennessee St., Alabama A&M, Cornell, Prairie View A&M, Siena Heights, etc.)

As somebody else suggested in an earlier post, there's more to it than simply "scheduling up". I wrote that! 4 points with scheduling up being the 4th culminating point. You roll it out like Fleck is. Recruit better talent, develop depth, schedule up and make an impact. What don't you get?

Is the goal winning the MAC, or is it getting to a Final Four?
Straw man. Getting to the Dance more than twice in a decade and not summarily be dismissed in the first round would be a start.


Right now, we haven't provided the resources to our basketball program to sit here and say "we want more than an automatic bid to the NCAA Tourney".

So the coach will coach better and the players will play better if they have more resources or are told more is coming?

You recruit better players, you develop them to play even better and challenge them by playing against better talent. Students will come to games if VCU, Texas, Dayton, Penn State are coming in.



Once that happens, then sure I'll be all for scheduling up. But right now, we've made it pretty clear as an athletic dept. that we're throwing resources into football and hockey.

Shift the freaking mindset. Stop coaching and playing with alligator arms and quit having fans accepting mediocrity for a few home games.

Home games against Oakland or a shot at knocking off a MVC, B 10, SEC, AAC or BE program? Which would you rather have?

(04-06-2015 03:39 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:53 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

Can that be proven? Yes.

Why hasn't it worked for Oakland then? It's Oakland. They have minimal talent. Don't be wowed by the glitz. Their record bares it out.

Do you have any links to Gonzaga's schedules in the '90's?
First Don Monson. Then Mark Few. Anyway, the 90's is too close to Nate Thurmond for your comfort. Careful what you ask for.


I just think there's more to it than simply scheduling up until you start winning. Doesn't make sense. That's not how you get better as a program.

Who made that claim?

(04-06-2015 05:13 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 03:39 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:53 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

Can that be proven?

Why hasn't it worked for Oakland then?

Do you have any links to Gonzaga's schedules in the '90's?

I just think there's more to it than simply scheduling up until you start winning. Doesn't make sense. That's not how you get better as a program.

Hoek,

What do you suggest to get WMU to the dance frequently?

Focus on winning the MAC with good recruiting, player development, facility upgrades, and playing competition that prepares us well for conference play.

(04-06-2015 05:39 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 03:39 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:53 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

Can that be proven? Yes.

Why hasn't it worked for Oakland then? It's Oakland. They have minimal talent. Don't be wowed by the glitz. Their record bares it out.

Do you have any links to Gonzaga's schedules in the '90's?
First Don Monson. Then Mark Few. Anyway, the 90's is too close to Nate Thurmond for your comfort. Careful what you ask for.


I just think there's more to it than simply scheduling up until you start winning. Doesn't make sense. That's not how you get better as a program.

Who made that claim?

Show me the links to their schedules in the 90's. I looked but can't find anything.

And by the way... don't ignore the fact that Gonzaga does not have a football or hockey program.

(04-06-2015 07:03 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 05:13 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 03:39 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:53 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

Can that be proven?

Why hasn't it worked for Oakland then?

Do you have any links to Gonzaga's schedules in the '90's?

I just think there's more to it than simply scheduling up until you start winning. Doesn't make sense. That's not how you get better as a program.

Hoek,

What do you suggest to get WMU to the dance frequently?

Focus on winning the MAC with good recruiting, player development, facility upgrades, and playing competition that prepares us well for conference play.

WMU has focused on winning the MAC. How have they done for you in the NCAA's? Or doesn't that matter?

I don't measure the program's success based on winning NCAA Tournament games.

Would I like to get to that point? Yes. But it's going to take a lot more than "scheduling up" to do that.

(04-06-2015 07:07 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 05:39 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 03:39 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:53 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  Go back 20 years in your memory. Had you ever heard of Gonzaga? How about VCU and Butler?
Year after year these teams started scheduling the very best teams they could get. Stuck with it for years. Initially they suffered lots of losses. Eventually the strategy worked. Does our fan base, coach and admin have the stomach to endure the first few years of this plan? Apparently not.

Can that be proven? Yes.

Why hasn't it worked for Oakland then? It's Oakland. They have minimal talent. Don't be wowed by the glitz. Their record bares it out.

Do you have any links to Gonzaga's schedules in the '90's?
First Don Monson. Then Mark Few. Anyway, the 90's is too close to Nate Thurmond for your comfort. Careful what you ask for.


I just think there's more to it than simply scheduling up until you start winning. Doesn't make sense. That's not how you get better as a program.

Who made that claim?

Show me the links to their schedules in the 90's. I looked but can't find anything.

And by the way... don't ignore the fact that Gonzaga does not have a football or hockey program.

Hoek, not all things are "equal". Some are born with a silver spoon in our mouths. Others a complete 180.

Some can make a fortune as a janitor leaving millions for others because they were disciplined, have a vision and undeterred by not having the benefits you attribute to being the lynch pin to success.

Bradley University doesn't have a football team. I dont believe they fund a significant hockey program. They should be light years ahead of WMU and others with the shackles you attribute. How do they measure up to their burdened brethren?

If it takes insightful fandom, gobs of $ and no competing financial interests why aren't all programs like this taking turns at the Final Four? You point out they have the keys to the kingdom.

Since you like to compare fruit ... Apple was founded in a garage, I believe. And even if I am wrong as to the exact physical location how did it grow into the behemoth it is now? Hand outs? Waiting for the stars to align.

Someone mentioned Butler University ... a good example of a program that has the commitment by it's admin but was NEVER the power it was recently until recently. Tex is correct. They had the likes of Collier, Lickliter and then Stevens in their recent past. All good coaches who over time rebuilt the brand. It took finding some kids others didn't want or were late bloomers but they were focused. Butler has a quaint facility. Maybe even a practice facility (so does the hoops power known as NIU). But you don't see 4 and 5 star players gravitating there. Until the unfortunate health issues of the gent who replaced Stevens lead to the current HC, Butler was sliding terribly. They still have the digs and all that new found and compounding cash, but they were falling off the radar. BAM! New guy. Apparently a different approach (vision) and Butler is back to serving whup butt!

Raise your vision, recruit up, develop it even more and test it.

It is quite simple. Maybe too simple for some.

(04-06-2015 09:18 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  I don't measure the program's success based on winning NCAA Tournament games.

Do you think? I'm not sure there is a ruler that short.

But what's wrong with making that your goal? Really, what's wrong with that being an intentional goal?

And if you admit it is. How has it worked out for you? As you implied, "There ain't no ruler short enuff." So .... maybe you don't revise the goal. Maybe you revise how you work to the goal. Or, is the goal not worthy of the effort? Maybe I have Bronco Nation figured all wrong.

(04-06-2015 08:55 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  WMU has focused on winning the MAC. How have they done for you in the NCAA's? Or doesn't that matter?

IMO this is more of a MAC-wide concern, as opposed to a WMU-specific issue.

I saw that Bradley was mentioned a couple of times. Bradley - and numerous other Valley programs - should have a significant edge over the MAC in terms of support for basketball programs considering they don't offer I-A, BCS-level football. This past season, though, the MAC was a better overall, top-to-bottom conference compared to the Valley. Other than the top two teams, the rest of the Valley was fairly weak and down compared to recent years. The Valley, of course, has earned its positive national basketball reputation by getting multiple teams to the tournament on a regular basis and, in many cases, producing victories and tournament runs. Just this past season - in a down year for the Valley - Wichita State reached the Sweet 16, and Northern Iowa reached the round of 32. That's three tournament wins in one down season for the league.

Consider, by comparison, how the MAC has done over the years in the tournament. Since the NCAA tournament expanded to 64 teams in the mid-1980s, here's a list of MAC teams over the years that have gone on to win at least one tournament game, along with how far they got in the tournament:

2012: Ohio (Sweet 16)
2010: Ohio (Round of 32)
2003: CMU (Round of 32)
2002: KSU (Great 8)
2001: KSU (Round of 32)
1999: Miami (Sweet 16)
1998: WMU (Round of 32)
1996: EMU (Round of 32)
1995: Miami (Round of 32)
1991: EMU (Sweet 16)
1990: BSU (Sweet 16)
1989: BSU (Round of 32)

Some great moments in there for the conference, for sure, but that only adds up to 18 total wins over a 30+ year period. I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing the Valley has produced a similar number of wins within the past ten years alone.

I'm in support of any measures our member schools take - including strengthening the non-conference schedules - in an effort to get an at-large team into the tournament and to put our schools in better position to get NCAA wins once there.

The Missouri Valley has fared MUCH better than the MAC in the NCAA Tournament. Not even close.

Main difference between Missouri Valley Conf. and the MAC? MVC doesn't have any D-1 football programs competing for money.

(04-07-2015 04:08 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  The Missouri Valley has fared MUCH better than the MAC in the NCAA Tournament. Not even close.

Main difference between Missouri Valley Conf. and the MAC? MVC doesn't have any D-1 football programs competing for money.

GBL used Bradley as an example. I'll include Illinois State (FCS Title game), Evansville, Indy State, Missouri State and now Loyola. No ice fighting and powder puff if that but they don't dominate. Aren't even on the radar. So what do they have on WMU?

(04-07-2015 04:41 PM)Cucumber Salad Wrote:  GBL used Bradley as an example. I'll include Illinois State (FCS Title game), Evansville, Indy State, Missouri State and now Loyola. No ice fighting and powder puff if that but they don't dominate. Aren't even on the radar. So what do they have on WMU?

What they - the Valley, that is - have is a top-heavy league with a couple of very strong teams at the top. Wichita's recent accomplishments speak for themselves. Northern Iowa had a great season, but I wouldn't put them in quite the same category solely based on one great season (which included a lot of seniors). I do think the Valley took a pretty big blow when Creighton left for the new Big East. Creighton had developed into a program that was consistently either winning the Valley or earning an at-large berth into the Dance.

It will be interesting to see what happens once Baker and VanVleet graduate from Wichita after next season. Will Gregg Marshall stick around? Can/will Wichita a) remain the dominant program of the Valley and b) continue to earn the level of national respect they currently receive? Top-to-bottom, I think the MAC is currently holding its own with the Valley and may even have a chance to consistently pass the Valley over the next few seasons. I don't see the MAC being as top-heavy as the Valley currently is anytime soon, though.