Cougs face Northern Iowa Wed. night
- Thread starter ScottHood
- Start date
Northern Iowa is not a top 5 team They lost to CSU and UNM at home. They are a strange team and i have not seen them play.
Northern Iowa is a directional mid major school that is sometimes good, beats good teams, goes to CIT, CBI, NIT, NCAA, and is sometimes aeverage, bad.
Yes they beat a top 5 team, they also lost against Hawaii, of the mountain west, CSU, of mountain west, or used to be in mountain west, new mexico, who either mountain west or sun belt.
So they beat a top 5 team, and lost to 3 average mid major teams.
So how did they beat a top 5 team, yet lose to average midmajor teams?
They probably Bennetball beated the top 5 team.
If a midmajor team with lesser talent, lesser skill, lesser athleticism, etc, plays Bennetball, they will probably just barely beat a top team, and then just barely lose to average, below average, bad teams.
That happened when WSU played Bennetball. They just barely Bennetball beat UCLA, and Bennetball jus5 barely lost to bad to average teams.
The same probably happened with UNI, in that they probably just barely Bennetball beat the top 5 team, and just barely Bennetball lost to Hawai, CSU, UNM.
And altho I didn't watch, or listen to, missed the WSU, UNI game, UNI was probably playing Bennetball when they just barely beat WSU 63 to 59.
The way to beat WSU, is to either play Bennetball, making WSU beat halfcourt defense, or to be like Arizona, Kentucky, and outrun WSU, again causing WSU to either outrun, or beat half court defense.
The memo is out on WSU. WSU sucks at beating half court defense. So all have to do to beat WSU is play ok, good half court defense.
So WSU got Bennetball beat again by a lesser talented mid major team like Northern Iowa.
So no moral victory, silver lining. That's the 4th loss of the year. And there is about a 43% that WSU will lose to the midmajor team to finish their non con schedule with a disappointing 5 losses, worse than last year, with a easier schedule then last year, with arguably better talent, athleticism, etc, than last year.
Which means that WSU would probably only win 4 to 7 conference games, which added to their could, would be, bad 7-5 non con, if WSU were to lose next game, would make 11-14,15 wins (15 if they win a PAC 12 tourney game).
That wouldn't be Kent getting it done, meeting expectations.
WSU SHOULD, SHOULD HAVE won about 15 to 19, probably 16,17 wins with the talent, skills, coaching of the team.
But based on the non con WSU probably won't do that, unless WSU improves a lot, which based on the non con. I don't see happening, like I thought it would, SHOULD have happened.
So much for this season.
Kent shouldn't be on the hotseat, nor should his seat start to warm. But if Kent doesn't get it done next year, his seat will, should get warm, hot, if Kent doesn't get it done next year, after probably not getting it done so far this season, and probably not going to get it done this season.
Frustrating that very logical, reasonable expectations of 15 to 19, 16,17 wins, based on WSU having better, improved, above average, decent, ok, semi good to good, etc, talent, skill, athleticism, etc, are, is either not being met, an or probably won't be met, by Kent, players.
Oh well at least there is football, oh wait football is over after the bowl tommorrow.
Oh well always next year.
Yes they beat a top 5 team, they also lost against Hawaii, of the mountain west, CSU, of mountain west, or used to be in mountain west, new mexico, who either mountain west or sun belt.
So they beat a top 5 team, and lost to 3 average mid major teams.
So how did they beat a top 5 team, yet lose to average midmajor teams?
They probably Bennetball beated the top 5 team.
If a midmajor team with lesser talent, lesser skill, lesser athleticism, etc, plays Bennetball, they will probably just barely beat a top team, and then just barely lose to average, below average, bad teams.
That happened when WSU played Bennetball. They just barely Bennetball beat UCLA, and Bennetball jus5 barely lost to bad to average teams.
The same probably happened with UNI, in that they probably just barely Bennetball beat the top 5 team, and just barely Bennetball lost to Hawai, CSU, UNM.
And altho I didn't watch, or listen to, missed the WSU, UNI game, UNI was probably playing Bennetball when they just barely beat WSU 63 to 59.
The way to beat WSU, is to either play Bennetball, making WSU beat halfcourt defense, or to be like Arizona, Kentucky, and outrun WSU, again causing WSU to either outrun, or beat half court defense.
The memo is out on WSU. WSU sucks at beating half court defense. So all have to do to beat WSU is play ok, good half court defense.
So WSU got Bennetball beat again by a lesser talented mid major team like Northern Iowa.
So no moral victory, silver lining. That's the 4th loss of the year. And there is about a 43% that WSU will lose to the midmajor team to finish their non con schedule with a disappointing 5 losses, worse than last year, with a easier schedule then last year, with arguably better talent, athleticism, etc, than last year.
Which means that WSU would probably only win 4 to 7 conference games, which added to their could, would be, bad 7-5 non con, if WSU were to lose next game, would make 11-14,15 wins (15 if they win a PAC 12 tourney game).
That wouldn't be Kent getting it done, meeting expectations.
WSU SHOULD, SHOULD HAVE won about 15 to 19, probably 16,17 wins with the talent, skills, coaching of the team.
But based on the non con WSU probably won't do that, unless WSU improves a lot, which based on the non con. I don't see happening, like I thought it would, SHOULD have happened.
So much for this season.
Kent shouldn't be on the hotseat, nor should his seat start to warm. But if Kent doesn't get it done next year, his seat will, should get warm, hot, if Kent doesn't get it done next year, after probably not getting it done so far this season, and probably not going to get it done this season.
Frustrating that very logical, reasonable expectations of 15 to 19, 16,17 wins, based on WSU having better, improved, above average, decent, ok, semi good to good, etc, talent, skill, athleticism, etc, are, is either not being met, an or probably won't be met, by Kent, players.
Oh well at least there is football, oh wait football is over after the bowl tommorrow.
Oh well always next year.
This team has good talent and will defend their home court well during the PAC 12 season NJ beat two top ranked teams this year. They play good team defense and do not make many mistakes. If their 3 pt shooting is on,they are tough to beat, Hopefully it was not a moral victory but a learning game. i am more optimistic than some of the pundits on this board
your assessment is wrong. 19 wins? Really? This is a 12-15 win team. Tops. You can't blame Kent yet, but at some point he has to bring in some PAC 12 talent. Like I've said before, there are 2 maybe 3 guys on our roster that would even make the 12 deep at other PAC 12 schools. You cant win with that. Regardless of how good your coach is. Filling roster spots with JC guys who weren't even the best player on their JC team and HS kids who have no other big offers just isn't going to get it done. Its the harsh truth. I have nothing against these young men. They are doing their best. But the PAC 12 talent isn't there. At least not at the depth that it needs to be.
Did i say 19 wins? I guess that we will see as the season progresses. Twelve wins !! i think that your assessment is wrong
I gave a range. I didn't specifically say 19 wins alone.
14,15 wins at minimum, and 18, 19 wins at MAXIMUM, with 16,17 wins, probable, average, was, is a very realistic expectation, prediction, projection, based on talent, coaching.
Now that the team is not meeting, and will probably not meet those realistic expectations, then your 11, 12 wins at minimum, and 14,15 wins maximum is now disappointingly about right.
But your claim of no talent, skill, athleticism, no good recruiting, etc, is false.
Bigs: With Hawkinson, Izundu, Clifford, Longrus, the Bigs, are better, deeper than when Bone had Motum, Shelton.
Hawk is about same as Motum. Izundu is equal to or better than DJ Shelton was. Clifford altho out of shape, rebounds, sets good picks, bangs, post up, and has nice shot, and can easily score about 10, and get at least 6 rebounds. And that's with being out of shape. Imagine how much even better, if he was in shape. And I figured he would be at least that good, when WSU first got him.
And Longrus, rebounds, takes charges, sets picks, quick, athletic, plays good defense, blocks shots, and dunks with authority on simple put backs, garbage, clean up shots inside, and when open inside, and when have good position, posted up on smaller, less athletic bigs, guards, combined with when fed the ball well by guards. So altho he doesn't score very often, he does all the little, but very important things, that add up to a big thing.
Hawkinson: 6-10.5, 243, was a high end 2 star to low end 3 star. PAC 12, power 5 D1 talent.
Overachieved, overachiever.
Izundu:About 6-9.5 ish, about 240, was a high end 3 star, to low end 4 star that was on the bench behind a more deep, talented frontcourt, before transfering.
PAC 12, power 5, D1 Talent.
Clifford: About 6-10, 259. was a high end 2 star, to low end 3 star, that did well before getting out of shape, and then transferring to WSU. PAC 12, power 5 D1 talent
Longrus: 6-6, Charles Barkleyish like, style, build, etc, except no have Barkley's scoring ability, attitude, mouth, etc, and not NBA athletic, altho is athletic, was a high end 3 star to low end 4 star that chose WSU over stanford. PAC 12, power 5 D1 talent.
King: is a hybrid 4/3, 3/4. 6 foot 7.5 extremely athletic, fast, speedy, quick. Shoots, drives, creates own shot well. Good from 3 pt.Rebounds well. Was a high end 3 star that transfered to WSU. PAC 12, D1 power 5, D1 talent.
Boese: high end 1 star to low end 2 star, cameo, Steve Kerr like, role sharp shooter player that gets 3 minutes per game just to hit a 3 pointer, and then sit. FCS, big Sky, Whitworth, EWU, Idaho like talent.
Guards.
Ike: 4 star. PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent.
Q: 4 star, PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent, underachiever.
Callison: high end 3 star, to low end 4 star, transfer, PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent.
Suggs: Scored about 14,15 a game, despite being in a extremely deep, talent guard corp, on a extremely good JUCO team. Fast, speedy, quick, athletic, drives, create own shot, semi good streaky shooter, semi good streaky 3 pt shooter, is more of a hybrid, 2,3, then a true 2, or a true 3. High end 3 star, to low end 4 star. PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent
Nye Redding: 3 star PG, PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent. Hasn't achieved potential.
The other 2,3,4 players on the roster are like Boese, in are not PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent, and are 1 star to 2 star, FCS, to low mid major semi D1 walk on, practice player, bench level talent.
So 9,10 out of 12,13,14,15 players, depending on roster size, are PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent, high end 3 star to low end 4 star talent.
That's ON PAPER of course. Just because they are that ON PAPER, doesn't mean that they will be that.
WSU'S problems hasn't been lack of recruiting under Bone, Kent, combined.
A more, higher star average has been recruited under Bone, Kent combined then since Sampson. Bone in his last classes had 2 4 star recruits. When was the last time WSU had 2 4 star recruits in 1 recruiting class? Answer: An extremely long time, many years ago. Raveling did it. Sampson might,probably have done it.
The only recruiting problem has been getting 5's, center's, and 1's PG's. But WSU has gotten a lot of high end 3 star, to low end 4 star, 2's, SG's, 3's,wings, 4's, SF, small forwards, ON PAPER.
The other problems are 1. Some players underachieving. 2. Not being developed good enough, fast enough. 3. Players not Jelling, no chemistry, no coming together, playing as a team, unforced errors, turnovers, and not playing as good of defense, as they could be, should be, and not rebounding as well could be, should be.
Other problems have been attrition, getting kicked out, benched, lack of playing time, etc, due to injuries, bad grades, weed, bad attitude, transfering out, giving up, quitting, etc.
Another problem is that this team needs to be down to a 8,9 man rotation. I know that Kent wants to have a large rotation, experiment early, find out what he has, get players more playing time, to develop the players better, but Kent has to balance that with winning games. Winning games is more important. But so far it seems that Kent thinks a larger rotation, experimenting, finding out what he has, developing players, etc, is more important then having a 7,8,9 man rotation, and winning games.
The rotation should be:
1. Hawkinson. 2. Ike. 3. Q. 4. Callison. 5. Izundu 6. Clifford. 7. Suggs. 8. Longrus. 9. Either Redding, or King, both being about equal, but 1 of which needs to be out of 9 man rotation, for now. Later on if both develop, work out, can, could go to 10 man rotation. And if both of them don't develop, work out then can, could go down to 8 man rotation.
And all those problems combined, are, is, both on coaches Bone, Kent, and on the players, all combinedly, at fault, to blame.
That is not on lack of talent, an or lack of recruiting.
If Coach K of Duke was WSU'S head coach, WSU'S non con record would be 10-2, with only losses to Gonzaga, and Oklahoma, and he would win about 16,17,18 games with the talent WSU has.
So the problem is not lack of talent, lack of good recruiting.
It may seem like that, because Bone, and now it seems Kent, hasn't developed recruits, hasn't coached well, and the players haven't done like Hawkinson, and haven't achieved their ON PAPER POTENTIAL, and or haven't overachieved like Hawkinson.
14,15 wins at minimum, and 18, 19 wins at MAXIMUM, with 16,17 wins, probable, average, was, is a very realistic expectation, prediction, projection, based on talent, coaching.
Now that the team is not meeting, and will probably not meet those realistic expectations, then your 11, 12 wins at minimum, and 14,15 wins maximum is now disappointingly about right.
But your claim of no talent, skill, athleticism, no good recruiting, etc, is false.
Bigs: With Hawkinson, Izundu, Clifford, Longrus, the Bigs, are better, deeper than when Bone had Motum, Shelton.
Hawk is about same as Motum. Izundu is equal to or better than DJ Shelton was. Clifford altho out of shape, rebounds, sets good picks, bangs, post up, and has nice shot, and can easily score about 10, and get at least 6 rebounds. And that's with being out of shape. Imagine how much even better, if he was in shape. And I figured he would be at least that good, when WSU first got him.
And Longrus, rebounds, takes charges, sets picks, quick, athletic, plays good defense, blocks shots, and dunks with authority on simple put backs, garbage, clean up shots inside, and when open inside, and when have good position, posted up on smaller, less athletic bigs, guards, combined with when fed the ball well by guards. So altho he doesn't score very often, he does all the little, but very important things, that add up to a big thing.
Hawkinson: 6-10.5, 243, was a high end 2 star to low end 3 star. PAC 12, power 5 D1 talent.
Overachieved, overachiever.
Izundu:About 6-9.5 ish, about 240, was a high end 3 star, to low end 4 star that was on the bench behind a more deep, talented frontcourt, before transfering.
PAC 12, power 5, D1 Talent.
Clifford: About 6-10, 259. was a high end 2 star, to low end 3 star, that did well before getting out of shape, and then transferring to WSU. PAC 12, power 5 D1 talent
Longrus: 6-6, Charles Barkleyish like, style, build, etc, except no have Barkley's scoring ability, attitude, mouth, etc, and not NBA athletic, altho is athletic, was a high end 3 star to low end 4 star that chose WSU over stanford. PAC 12, power 5 D1 talent.
King: is a hybrid 4/3, 3/4. 6 foot 7.5 extremely athletic, fast, speedy, quick. Shoots, drives, creates own shot well. Good from 3 pt.Rebounds well. Was a high end 3 star that transfered to WSU. PAC 12, D1 power 5, D1 talent.
Boese: high end 1 star to low end 2 star, cameo, Steve Kerr like, role sharp shooter player that gets 3 minutes per game just to hit a 3 pointer, and then sit. FCS, big Sky, Whitworth, EWU, Idaho like talent.
Guards.
Ike: 4 star. PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent.
Q: 4 star, PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent, underachiever.
Callison: high end 3 star, to low end 4 star, transfer, PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent.
Suggs: Scored about 14,15 a game, despite being in a extremely deep, talent guard corp, on a extremely good JUCO team. Fast, speedy, quick, athletic, drives, create own shot, semi good streaky shooter, semi good streaky 3 pt shooter, is more of a hybrid, 2,3, then a true 2, or a true 3. High end 3 star, to low end 4 star. PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent
Nye Redding: 3 star PG, PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent. Hasn't achieved potential.
The other 2,3,4 players on the roster are like Boese, in are not PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent, and are 1 star to 2 star, FCS, to low mid major semi D1 walk on, practice player, bench level talent.
So 9,10 out of 12,13,14,15 players, depending on roster size, are PAC 12, power 5, D1 talent, high end 3 star to low end 4 star talent.
That's ON PAPER of course. Just because they are that ON PAPER, doesn't mean that they will be that.
WSU'S problems hasn't been lack of recruiting under Bone, Kent, combined.
A more, higher star average has been recruited under Bone, Kent combined then since Sampson. Bone in his last classes had 2 4 star recruits. When was the last time WSU had 2 4 star recruits in 1 recruiting class? Answer: An extremely long time, many years ago. Raveling did it. Sampson might,probably have done it.
The only recruiting problem has been getting 5's, center's, and 1's PG's. But WSU has gotten a lot of high end 3 star, to low end 4 star, 2's, SG's, 3's,wings, 4's, SF, small forwards, ON PAPER.
The other problems are 1. Some players underachieving. 2. Not being developed good enough, fast enough. 3. Players not Jelling, no chemistry, no coming together, playing as a team, unforced errors, turnovers, and not playing as good of defense, as they could be, should be, and not rebounding as well could be, should be.
Other problems have been attrition, getting kicked out, benched, lack of playing time, etc, due to injuries, bad grades, weed, bad attitude, transfering out, giving up, quitting, etc.
Another problem is that this team needs to be down to a 8,9 man rotation. I know that Kent wants to have a large rotation, experiment early, find out what he has, get players more playing time, to develop the players better, but Kent has to balance that with winning games. Winning games is more important. But so far it seems that Kent thinks a larger rotation, experimenting, finding out what he has, developing players, etc, is more important then having a 7,8,9 man rotation, and winning games.
The rotation should be:
1. Hawkinson. 2. Ike. 3. Q. 4. Callison. 5. Izundu 6. Clifford. 7. Suggs. 8. Longrus. 9. Either Redding, or King, both being about equal, but 1 of which needs to be out of 9 man rotation, for now. Later on if both develop, work out, can, could go to 10 man rotation. And if both of them don't develop, work out then can, could go down to 8 man rotation.
And all those problems combined, are, is, both on coaches Bone, Kent, and on the players, all combinedly, at fault, to blame.
That is not on lack of talent, an or lack of recruiting.
If Coach K of Duke was WSU'S head coach, WSU'S non con record would be 10-2, with only losses to Gonzaga, and Oklahoma, and he would win about 16,17,18 games with the talent WSU has.
So the problem is not lack of talent, lack of good recruiting.
It may seem like that, because Bone, and now it seems Kent, hasn't developed recruits, hasn't coached well, and the players haven't done like Hawkinson, and haven't achieved their ON PAPER POTENTIAL, and or haven't overachieved like Hawkinson.
Last edited:
Similar threads
