(02-03-2013 12:27 PM)thxjoenovak Wrote: (02-03-2013 12:18 PM)niu2222 Wrote: He doesn't even know this board exists. I just tell him and the coaches what people say. I also tell people in athletics what people are saying. They could not believe, we were talking about Monty being fired. The athletic dept is 100% and very happy with Monty and the direction of the program.
The "WE" regarding "FIRE" was a very small part of this Board.
"CONCERNED" would be another story. Again, speaking for myself, I was concerned after watching the WMU Home loss 71-34.
This is a good example of interpretation. thxjoenovak and everyone expressing "concern" had every right to feel that way, and continue to feel that apprehension.
Perhaps "those people" niu2222 spoke with "could not believe" there was a small segment talking about Montgomery being fired, but there are others in the athletic department who know better. To say the athletic dept is "100% and very happy" is also overstating things. At least two members I spoke with said there was "an air of frustration and disappointment" throughout the Convo.
It is too early and financially unfeasible to fire Montgomery, however, it is reasonable to be concerned and debate if sufficient progess is being made.
On the one hand, it wouldn't take much to improve on Patton's program; on the other hand, how much more competitive is the program? Even a numerical improvement in victories over last year (5-26 / 3-13) does not mean escaping a seventh straight 20-loss season. Two such years under Montgomery is not much more encouraging than two such seasons under Patton.
Yes, the team is extremely young, but that reality places a greater empahsis on recruiting and then playing fundamental offense and defense with the talent in place. A home game like WMU is a greater concern than a road game like EMU. MAC basketball is not on a par where it used to be and yet, Toledo was just NIU's first league loss that wasn't by a double-digit margin.
With the exception of Kent State (12-10), the other four wins are over teams with sub-.500 records (SIU-E 8-11; Judson 4-16; Miami 8-12; CMU 9-12); and while the losses outside of the conference are versus programs split between sub-.500 or above-.500 records, only one (Valparaiso) is leading its league. So it would be safe to say this has not been a killer schedule.
Despite what niu2222 may believe,
I genuinely hope and pray the positives will far out-weigh the negatives over the remainder of this season; however, it's also clear that a chasm still remains between 20-losses and even coming close to a .500 campaign. For any Division I program, that
is a concern. In today's collegiate basketball world, that's the same as the collegiate football world now giving coaches only three seasons -- sometimes even two -- to prove themselves. As thxjoenovak and others have justifiably stated, there are reasons to be concerned, and it is still possible to be supportive while being critical.
