138-63 There were 8 players in double figures in scoring. Elleby lead the way with 14 points 10 rebounds and 6 assists.
Cougs win
- Thread starter ElComanche
- Start date
Let's see what happens against suspect D1 competition next week. Easy layups and dunks against HS caliber players doesnt do much for me. Watching the scrimmage and then seeing the same players that looked average look like superstars in this exhibition doesnt tell me too much besides New Hope didn't have any lol.
I am not trying to be negative, just trying to be real. Competition with no size or athleticism is great for the scoreboard but I need to see real game action. 7-8 conference wins would be considered a success by me and would be give us a CBI or NIT bid. Likely that is a stretch considering past results.
I am not trying to be negative, just trying to be real. Competition with no size or athleticism is great for the scoreboard but I need to see real game action. 7-8 conference wins would be considered a success by me and would be give us a CBI or NIT bid. Likely that is a stretch considering past results.
Last edited:
It's just an exhibition. We saw last year how Acquaah ran through the exhibition and then struggled almost immediately. Still, good to see the players even if it's totally meaningless.
I saw films of the game. The opposing team looked like the YMCA variety type of team.When they go on the road to NMSU we will see how they react to a D1 team with good talent. NMSU has a point guard.who is as quick, stronger,more athletic , and more experienced than the cougs guards. They have recruited three of the Nations top ten rated jucos Nationally.One of these guys out rebounded and outplayed Wade in both of their games. They are superbly coached and we will see how the cougs react to a good team on the road.
Last edited:
With the caveat that the competition was not a lot better than a very good HS team there is a lot more talent on this team than on any team since Kent has been here. They looked like world beaters.
All of the returners looked as good or better than their best last year.
Of the JC's Isaiah Wade looked really really good. He was all over the court. Shot well, had several dunks and finished explosively on fast breaks. Robinson and Ali seemed to me to be about equal. Both shot well and handled the ball well. Both seem to me to be an upgrade over any PG Kent has had. Cannon had a nice game, but did not particularly stand out to me. Streeter didn't get in until the last couple of minutes despite the huge lead.
Very impressed with Elleby and Kunc. Elleby is like a deer on the court. He's all over the place. It seemed like whenever there was a contested ball or rebound he was in the middle of it. I was kind of concerned about his shooting, but then he buried two 3's in a row. At first I didn't think Kunc was as quick as Elleby, but he is deceptive because he is so smooth. He scores with ease from anywhere on the court.
Again it is difficult to make a valid evaluation because they of their overwhelming superior talent. One thing that caught my eye is that they seem to get along real well. Laughing and joking during warm-ups, standing a lot of the time when on the bench. Maybe there won't be the dissension that plagued the team the past couple of years.
It will be interesting to see how they react when facing better talent.
All of the returners looked as good or better than their best last year.
Of the JC's Isaiah Wade looked really really good. He was all over the court. Shot well, had several dunks and finished explosively on fast breaks. Robinson and Ali seemed to me to be about equal. Both shot well and handled the ball well. Both seem to me to be an upgrade over any PG Kent has had. Cannon had a nice game, but did not particularly stand out to me. Streeter didn't get in until the last couple of minutes despite the huge lead.
Very impressed with Elleby and Kunc. Elleby is like a deer on the court. He's all over the place. It seemed like whenever there was a contested ball or rebound he was in the middle of it. I was kind of concerned about his shooting, but then he buried two 3's in a row. At first I didn't think Kunc was as quick as Elleby, but he is deceptive because he is so smooth. He scores with ease from anywhere on the court.
Again it is difficult to make a valid evaluation because they of their overwhelming superior talent. One thing that caught my eye is that they seem to get along real well. Laughing and joking during warm-ups, standing a lot of the time when on the bench. Maybe there won't be the dissension that plagued the team the past couple of years.
It will be interesting to see how they react when facing better talent.
Same to me.
10-11 floor, 2-3 3's and led the team with 24 points. I don't care who the competition is, that's an impressive line for a player, especially if most of the play was outside of playing in the post? Not to mention he's a freshman.
Kunc has very good athleticism. When i watched his videos i said that he was a way under rated recruit. He looked a lot better than some of the so called four star recruits. He was /is a player who is a virtual unknown in college basketball recruiting. How that happened is a story in itself.
Thanks Rich. Even Kent has said Elleby's outside shooting is a work-in-progress. At the shootout he played in he made his first 3 of the game (maybe first 2 3s) but went on to put up some pretty poor looking shots. Still see him becoming a good/consistent shooter if not soon then down the line.
I feel like a lot of these guys are more in the mold of Bennett or even Sampson-type players. Might not end in even an NIT but the talent seems improved and hopefully the chemistry and attitude has improved as well.
I feel like a lot of these guys are more in the mold of Bennett or even Sampson-type players. Might not end in even an NIT but the talent seems improved and hopefully the chemistry and attitude has improved as well.
Friend of mine played against the senior Elleby in high school. He said Bill was very smooth with a nice mid range shot, but didnt think he was a Pac 10 caliber player. He was surprised at Ellebys career with Cal.
Younger Elleby is bigger, faster than his dad and appears to be at the opposite end of the spectrum in playing style
Younger Elleby is bigger, faster than his dad and appears to be at the opposite end of the spectrum in playing style
Elleby's going to be a stat stuffer. He doesn't jump out of the gym but he's "bouncy" and seems pretty quick at 6'6" with good skills. He's the type of player a couple years down the line that Gonzaga and Washington fans will ask why he's at Wazzu and they didn't offered. Same with Kunc.
Do you think Elleby was the type of recruit that the uw and Gonzaga used to sign and had a great deal of success with before they both started recruiting nationally?
I should of course start with "we will see". I know it's obvious but it's about how they develop and grow but the talent looks there for Elleby and Kunc from what's being said. I haven't seen them other than the few highlights here-and-there but it seems like it especially the type of players Gonzaga used to recruit. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Last edited:
I remember 7 to 15 point just barely wins over exhibition teams within the last few years by WSU where after only winning 7 to 15 in exhibition, WSU did TERRIBLY, HORRIBLY bad.
When most even good colleges play in exhibition, they only win by 25 to 50 points.
BYU, which is predicted to finish 1st,2nd, 3rd in WCC, beat its exhibition team by only 43 to 47 points.
Now compare that with WSU nearly setting a exhibition SCORING RECORD, WIN DIFFERENTIAL RECORD in exhibition.
They scored a FREAKIN 138, AND THEY WON BY A FREAKING 75 POINTS.
THATS NEARLY THE MOST IN WSU HISTORY.
LET ALL OF THE ABOVE SINK IN.
Then you look at the individual performances. The 8, 9 individuals scoring in double figures, all the assist, rebounds, 3 pointers, which are near records, which are IMPRESSIVE in any game, even a exhibition game.
So what does this mean?
Well if WSU had only just barely won, AGAIN, I would be predicting a BAD year for WSU.
If WSU had won by 17 to 33 points. I would predict a unknown toss up, 50/50 of bad year, average, semi good year.
If WSU had won by 33 to 43 points I would have predicted a semi good year.
If WSU had won by 45 to 55 points I would have predicted a good year.
If WSU had won by 57 to 65+ points(Oh Wait they did), I would predict a semi very good year.
So what does that mean?
When you combine all of the above with WSU playing one of the weakest most pathetic nonconference schedules in WSU's history, there is a reasonable, rational, logical expection to only lose 0, ZERO,1,2,3 nonconference games, and win 10,11,12 non conference games, and win 5,6,7 conference games and win 15 to 19 games, with 17 wins most likely. With a possible, semi probable NIT, and if not NIT, a CBI, and if NIT, a semi deep run, and if CBI, either almost winning, or winning CBI
That's a REALISTIC prediction when you consider all the above, scoring 138, winning by 75, even in a exhibition, 8,9 players in double figures, near record settting individual performances, lots of assist, 3's, etc, COMBINED with ONE OF THE WEAKEST MOST PATHETIC NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULE IN WSU HISTORY.
If any other college had WSU's nonconference schedule, and scored 138 and won by 75 in a exhibition game, more then even what even good colleges normally win by in their exhibition games, any other college, Fans in WSU's shoes would have a realistic expectation of a good season and NOT a bad season.
I understand that WSU, Fans has been bit in the past where they thought that the team would be good based on what saw in exhibition game.
But that's the past.
That's like football fans expecting WSU to COUG IT(snatch defeat from jaws of victory)
Sure WSU could have a BAD season despite this near record performance by any college team, even a good college team, let alone WSU, BUT:
ITS NOT BLOODY DAMN LIKELY CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE AND THE WEAK NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULE.
When most even good colleges play in exhibition, they only win by 25 to 50 points.
BYU, which is predicted to finish 1st,2nd, 3rd in WCC, beat its exhibition team by only 43 to 47 points.
Now compare that with WSU nearly setting a exhibition SCORING RECORD, WIN DIFFERENTIAL RECORD in exhibition.
They scored a FREAKIN 138, AND THEY WON BY A FREAKING 75 POINTS.
THATS NEARLY THE MOST IN WSU HISTORY.
LET ALL OF THE ABOVE SINK IN.
Then you look at the individual performances. The 8, 9 individuals scoring in double figures, all the assist, rebounds, 3 pointers, which are near records, which are IMPRESSIVE in any game, even a exhibition game.
So what does this mean?
Well if WSU had only just barely won, AGAIN, I would be predicting a BAD year for WSU.
If WSU had won by 17 to 33 points. I would predict a unknown toss up, 50/50 of bad year, average, semi good year.
If WSU had won by 33 to 43 points I would have predicted a semi good year.
If WSU had won by 45 to 55 points I would have predicted a good year.
If WSU had won by 57 to 65+ points(Oh Wait they did), I would predict a semi very good year.
So what does that mean?
When you combine all of the above with WSU playing one of the weakest most pathetic nonconference schedules in WSU's history, there is a reasonable, rational, logical expection to only lose 0, ZERO,1,2,3 nonconference games, and win 10,11,12 non conference games, and win 5,6,7 conference games and win 15 to 19 games, with 17 wins most likely. With a possible, semi probable NIT, and if not NIT, a CBI, and if NIT, a semi deep run, and if CBI, either almost winning, or winning CBI
That's a REALISTIC prediction when you consider all the above, scoring 138, winning by 75, even in a exhibition, 8,9 players in double figures, near record settting individual performances, lots of assist, 3's, etc, COMBINED with ONE OF THE WEAKEST MOST PATHETIC NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULE IN WSU HISTORY.
If any other college had WSU's nonconference schedule, and scored 138 and won by 75 in a exhibition game, more then even what even good colleges normally win by in their exhibition games, any other college, Fans in WSU's shoes would have a realistic expectation of a good season and NOT a bad season.
I understand that WSU, Fans has been bit in the past where they thought that the team would be good based on what saw in exhibition game.
But that's the past.
That's like football fans expecting WSU to COUG IT(snatch defeat from jaws of victory)
Sure WSU could have a BAD season despite this near record performance by any college team, even a good college team, let alone WSU, BUT:
ITS NOT BLOODY DAMN LIKELY CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE AND THE WEAK NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULE.
Last edited:
Btw, thanks for posting report, results
And CORRECTION, I missed looked at the score.
WSU won by a FREAKING 75, SEVENTY FIVE, IF MY MATH IS RIGHT.
138-63=75 right?
I think my mind saw the 63 and weirdly saw, thought, said 63, instead of 75.
If I remember right, the last time WSU won by close to 75+, against a exhibition team, it was either during the Bennet years, or Kelvin Sampson years, and WSU went to either the NIT, NCAA.
IF I remember right, I think the team was Grand Prairie State college or something like that.
And CORRECTION, I missed looked at the score.
WSU won by a FREAKING 75, SEVENTY FIVE, IF MY MATH IS RIGHT.
138-63=75 right?
I think my mind saw the 63 and weirdly saw, thought, said 63, instead of 75.
If I remember right, the last time WSU won by close to 75+, against a exhibition team, it was either during the Bennet years, or Kelvin Sampson years, and WSU went to either the NIT, NCAA.
IF I remember right, I think the team was Grand Prairie State college or something like that.
I think this team is improved. 2 things to keep in mind when looking at the scoring outburst however. College scoring is really going up. Duke scored 118 on Kentucky, and GU put 120 on Idaho St. Second, I think we have under achieved based on our talent in 2 of the last 4 years.
Nobody wants to see success in Pullman more than me, and I am enthused about the new players, but I take little from the 136 points against arguably the weakest opponent ever to set foot in Beasley.
In the end it is going to come down to whether Ali, and Robinson can match up with other Pac 12 pgs.
Nobody wants to see success in Pullman more than me, and I am enthused about the new players, but I take little from the 136 points against arguably the weakest opponent ever to set foot in Beasley.
In the end it is going to come down to whether Ali, and Robinson can match up with other Pac 12 pgs.
Idaho St is nearly almost as bad as the Exhibition team we played. And stating that GU scored 120 on Idaho state doesnt make your point, because it doesn't state what they won by.
Now if you had stated that GU had beat Idaho state by 59 to 75+ points or that Duke beat Kentucky by 49 to 75+ points, that would make your point.
Winning by 75+ points is EXTREMELY RARE in any game, EVEN IN EXHIBITION AGAINST HORRIBLY BAD TEAMS.
BYU played a BAD exhibition team, just like WSU did and only scored 40 to 59 points.
I wouldnt be suprised if even Duke, or any of the top 25 teams had NOT won by as big a margin of victory as 75 points in their exhibition games.
And the last time WSU won by 75+ points, in a exhibition game was during either the Bennet years, or the Sampson years, and WSU went to the NCAA, NIT the last time WSU scored 75+ points in a exhibition game.
And I am pretty sure WSU has almost never failed to have a good year, go to NIT, CBI, NCAA, etc, when they have won by at least 75 or close to 75 points or 75+ in a exhibition game.
Your logic is flawed or your not being logical
Now if you had stated that GU had beat Idaho state by 59 to 75+ points or that Duke beat Kentucky by 49 to 75+ points, that would make your point.
Winning by 75+ points is EXTREMELY RARE in any game, EVEN IN EXHIBITION AGAINST HORRIBLY BAD TEAMS.
BYU played a BAD exhibition team, just like WSU did and only scored 40 to 59 points.
I wouldnt be suprised if even Duke, or any of the top 25 teams had NOT won by as big a margin of victory as 75 points in their exhibition games.
And the last time WSU won by 75+ points, in a exhibition game was during either the Bennet years, or the Sampson years, and WSU went to the NCAA, NIT the last time WSU scored 75+ points in a exhibition game.
And I am pretty sure WSU has almost never failed to have a good year, go to NIT, CBI, NCAA, etc, when they have won by at least 75 or close to 75 points or 75+ in a exhibition game.
Your logic is flawed or your not being logical
Last edited:
And its not just winning by 75.
Looking at winning by 75 by itself could be meaningless as you say, and WSU could still in theory have a bad year, even tho not bloody damn likely.
ITS WHEN YOU LOOK AT BOTH, COMBINED THE WINNING BY 75, AND ONE OF THE WEAKEST NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULES IN WSU HISTORY TOGETHER COMBINED.
By itself the weak schedule, could mean a bad year because WSU could have either lost the exhibition game, or just barely won, and then have a bad year despite the easy schedule.
And
IF WSU had the toughest schedule, WSU could still have a bad year, despite winning exhibition by 75.
Its when you combine winning by 75 with the weakest schedule.
NO WAY IN HELL SHOULD WSU FAIL to win 17 games, goto at least CBI or NIT, when won by 75 in exhibition, combined with having the weakest, most pathetic schedule in WSU history, like what with this year.
If WSU were to have a bad year despite winning by 75, despite the weak schedule, it would be the worst underachieving in WSU history, it would be the worst coaching since GRAHAM, and KENT would DESERVE to be FIRED IMMEDIATLY after the last game of the season.
Like I said its just not BLOODY DAMN LIKELY
and your being a totally illogical negacoug
Looking at winning by 75 by itself could be meaningless as you say, and WSU could still in theory have a bad year, even tho not bloody damn likely.
ITS WHEN YOU LOOK AT BOTH, COMBINED THE WINNING BY 75, AND ONE OF THE WEAKEST NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULES IN WSU HISTORY TOGETHER COMBINED.
By itself the weak schedule, could mean a bad year because WSU could have either lost the exhibition game, or just barely won, and then have a bad year despite the easy schedule.
And
IF WSU had the toughest schedule, WSU could still have a bad year, despite winning exhibition by 75.
Its when you combine winning by 75 with the weakest schedule.
NO WAY IN HELL SHOULD WSU FAIL to win 17 games, goto at least CBI or NIT, when won by 75 in exhibition, combined with having the weakest, most pathetic schedule in WSU history, like what with this year.
If WSU were to have a bad year despite winning by 75, despite the weak schedule, it would be the worst underachieving in WSU history, it would be the worst coaching since GRAHAM, and KENT would DESERVE to be FIRED IMMEDIATLY after the last game of the season.
Like I said its just not BLOODY DAMN LIKELY
and your being a totally illogical negacoug
I hope you are right about us this year. I just totally disagree that your statistical analysis of that massive win tells me anything. Also, suggesting that ISU, as weak as they are, is even close to as weak as our exhibition opponent is ludicrous.
My guess is that G-Prep could hang with or beat that exhibition opponent, although I would defer to anyone who actually saw the game on that matter.
My guess is that G-Prep could hang with or beat that exhibition opponent, although I would defer to anyone who actually saw the game on that matter.
Last edited:
Last night's women's game may have been the best indicator of what can be taken away from the men's exhibition game. In their exhibition game they took down Warner Pacific 106-41 and just like the men looked like world beaters. Last night they played Utah State, a real college team, and lost.
Two different scenarios. The Utah State team basically out physical ed the women s team.In a close game they folded under physical pressure. I do agree that the men s exhibition victory does not indicate anything. In the men s game the other team looked like a YMCA garden variety team.It is different when an opposing team bumps and grinds every possession and are physical enough not to be intimidated by players.The schedule gets tougher and we will see how they react to better players and better coaching. The men s game was meaningless in my opinion.
You didn’t watch the women’s game. It had nothing to do with being out physicaled. it was all about one coach making an adjustment and another coach not adjusting to that adjustment. The women’s team will be just fine, it’ll just be A few games to get comfortable. I still haven’t seen the guys but will be in attendance on Sunday, looking forward to seeing this game more than any first game in a long while because of all the new guys
Last edited:
The mens exhibition game by ITSELF could be, and or is meaningless.
It's when, if you COMBINE winning by 75, EVEN AGAINST A HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION TEAM, SOMETHING EXTREMELY HARD, RARE TO DO, SOMETHING NOT EVEN GOOD TEAMS LIKE BYU(BYU WON BY ONLY 40 TO 60 POINTS, AGAINST ITS HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION GAME, AND HAS BEEN LONG TIME SINCE EVEN BYU HAS WON BY 75, EVEN AGAINST A HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION TEAM)succeed at doing, COMBINED WITH HAVING ONE OF THE WORST MOST PATHETIC NONCONFERENCE SCHEDULES IN WSU's HISTORY.
ONLY THEN DOES IT MEAN SOMETHING THAT BASED ON WINNING BY 75 EVEN OVER A HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION TEAM, AND HAVING ONE OF THE EASIEST NONCONFERENCE SCHEDULES EVER, THAT WSU SHOULD PROBABLY WIN 17 GAMES, CBI, NIT.
BY ITSELF, ITSELF, ITSELF, A EASY SCHEDULE BY ITSELF, ITSELF CAN MEAN NOTHING.
BY ITSELF, ITSELF, ITSELF, ITSELF, WINNING BY 75 CAN MEAN NOTHING.
BUT TOGETHER COMBINED, TOGETHER COMBINED, TOGETHER COMBINED, WINNNING BY 75 EVEN OVER A HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION TEAM +, PLUS+, PLUS, COMBINED, COMBINED, COMBINED WITH ONE OF THE EASIEST SCHEDULES EVER, CAN, DOES, SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING, THAT WSU, OR WHATEVER COLLEGE IN WSU shoes, WOULD PROBABLY WIN 17 GAMES, CBI, NIT.
Also your comparision to womens team is not a good comparision because even tho the women won by 66 points against their bad exhibition team, their SCHEDULE is PROBABLY A LOT TOUGHER THEN THE MEN'S SCHEDULE, AND WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF UTAH STATE IS A TOUGH TEAM.
Now if the women's team were to have won by 66 like they did in their exhibition team, and if Utah State is a weak team, and if the women have one of the easiest schedules ever, then your comparison of the womens team to the mens team to make your point would be accurate.
Your logic is flawed, and is not logical
It's when, if you COMBINE winning by 75, EVEN AGAINST A HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION TEAM, SOMETHING EXTREMELY HARD, RARE TO DO, SOMETHING NOT EVEN GOOD TEAMS LIKE BYU(BYU WON BY ONLY 40 TO 60 POINTS, AGAINST ITS HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION GAME, AND HAS BEEN LONG TIME SINCE EVEN BYU HAS WON BY 75, EVEN AGAINST A HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION TEAM)succeed at doing, COMBINED WITH HAVING ONE OF THE WORST MOST PATHETIC NONCONFERENCE SCHEDULES IN WSU's HISTORY.
ONLY THEN DOES IT MEAN SOMETHING THAT BASED ON WINNING BY 75 EVEN OVER A HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION TEAM, AND HAVING ONE OF THE EASIEST NONCONFERENCE SCHEDULES EVER, THAT WSU SHOULD PROBABLY WIN 17 GAMES, CBI, NIT.
BY ITSELF, ITSELF, ITSELF, A EASY SCHEDULE BY ITSELF, ITSELF CAN MEAN NOTHING.
BY ITSELF, ITSELF, ITSELF, ITSELF, WINNING BY 75 CAN MEAN NOTHING.
BUT TOGETHER COMBINED, TOGETHER COMBINED, TOGETHER COMBINED, WINNNING BY 75 EVEN OVER A HORRIBLY BAD EXHIBITION TEAM +, PLUS+, PLUS, COMBINED, COMBINED, COMBINED WITH ONE OF THE EASIEST SCHEDULES EVER, CAN, DOES, SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING, THAT WSU, OR WHATEVER COLLEGE IN WSU shoes, WOULD PROBABLY WIN 17 GAMES, CBI, NIT.
Also your comparision to womens team is not a good comparision because even tho the women won by 66 points against their bad exhibition team, their SCHEDULE is PROBABLY A LOT TOUGHER THEN THE MEN'S SCHEDULE, AND WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF UTAH STATE IS A TOUGH TEAM.
Now if the women's team were to have won by 66 like they did in their exhibition team, and if Utah State is a weak team, and if the women have one of the easiest schedules ever, then your comparison of the womens team to the mens team to make your point would be accurate.
Your logic is flawed, and is not logical
Look, I think we'll have a winning season too. But we play more of an uptempo style designed to maximize the number of possessions in the game. Scoring 138 is pretty good but we also allowed 63. We doubled them +12. I dont that its that impressive.
Ethridge talked indirectly about a
I have to say the giving up 63 part to this team wasn't in the good column.
Reasonable Cougar fans,
Let's take a deeper look at WSU's exhibition opponent. New Hope Christian College in Eugene, Oregon has a student enrollment (2018) of 93 students. I repeat, 93 students. They are currently 0-8, all losses by very large numbers. Their tallest player is 6-5 (only 1) and only 5 players over 6-3. The two games prior to WSU, New Hope lost 99-49 & 113-71 to Oregon Institute of Technology, enrollment of 5,400 playing at the NAIA level.
Even as a basketball bottom feeder, WSU is a member of the NCAA, Pac-12 Conference with an enrollment of 25,277.
Cougar fans and Ernie Kent can take nothing from this exhibition beat down against probably the worst, organized college basketball team in America. I'd be shocked if the top rec team at Bohler didn't beat this team.
Let's wait until a few real opponents are curb stomped by WSU before we start talking CBI/NIT/NCAA tourneys. Hopefully this current WSU squad will show great improvement this year. Small steps first..........
Let's take a deeper look at WSU's exhibition opponent. New Hope Christian College in Eugene, Oregon has a student enrollment (2018) of 93 students. I repeat, 93 students. They are currently 0-8, all losses by very large numbers. Their tallest player is 6-5 (only 1) and only 5 players over 6-3. The two games prior to WSU, New Hope lost 99-49 & 113-71 to Oregon Institute of Technology, enrollment of 5,400 playing at the NAIA level.
Even as a basketball bottom feeder, WSU is a member of the NCAA, Pac-12 Conference with an enrollment of 25,277.
Cougar fans and Ernie Kent can take nothing from this exhibition beat down against probably the worst, organized college basketball team in America. I'd be shocked if the top rec team at Bohler didn't beat this team.
Let's wait until a few real opponents are curb stomped by WSU before we start talking CBI/NIT/NCAA tourneys. Hopefully this current WSU squad will show great improvement this year. Small steps first..........
Like always you assume too much .It is sometimes not about making adjustments but a team ramping up it s play and ano
who is assuming? I was at the game and watched it unfold. You on the other hand did not see the game and assume you know what happened just like you assume a player is athletic and skilled and going to be a solid player just by watching a highlight video. You constantly talk about other people not knowing basketball but how many times do you have to be wrong before you look in the mirror and see one of those “so called experts” looking back at you?
ALL you guys are doing is proving that at in Moderation WSU winning by 75 against one of the worst exhibition teams ever is meaningless.
And you guys are right(now read carefully here)BY ITSELF, BY ITSELF, WSU winning by 75 can Mean Nothing.
BUT when, if you COMBINE COMBINE COMBINE winning by 75, even against one of the worst exhibition teams, with WSU having ONE OF THE EASIEST, WEAKEST, MOST PATHETIC NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULES IN WSU HISTORY, THEN IT CAN, DOES, SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING, AND CAN, DOES, SHOULD, PROBABLY, ETC, MEANS THAT WSU WOULD, SHOULD WIN 17 GAMES, CBI.
PLEASE READ THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH CAREFULLY.
I AM NOT SAYING TO GO BY JUST THE WSU WINNING BY 75 ALONE ITSELF WHICH CAN MEAN NOTHING.
INSTEAD I AM SAYING TO GO BY A COMBINATION OF WSU HAVING ONE OF THE WEAKEST, EASIEST SCHEDULES EVER IN WSU HISTORY COMBINED WITH WSU WINNING BY 75, WHICH BOTH THINGS COMBINED CAN, IS PROBABLY A GOOD INDICATOR THAT WSU WIN 17 GAMES, CBI.
PLEASE READ, COMPREHEND ALL THE ABOVE, WHAT IT MEANS, SAYS, CLARIFIES, LOGIC, ETC.
And you guys are right(now read carefully here)BY ITSELF, BY ITSELF, WSU winning by 75 can Mean Nothing.
BUT when, if you COMBINE COMBINE COMBINE winning by 75, even against one of the worst exhibition teams, with WSU having ONE OF THE EASIEST, WEAKEST, MOST PATHETIC NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULES IN WSU HISTORY, THEN IT CAN, DOES, SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING, AND CAN, DOES, SHOULD, PROBABLY, ETC, MEANS THAT WSU WOULD, SHOULD WIN 17 GAMES, CBI.
PLEASE READ THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH CAREFULLY.
I AM NOT SAYING TO GO BY JUST THE WSU WINNING BY 75 ALONE ITSELF WHICH CAN MEAN NOTHING.
INSTEAD I AM SAYING TO GO BY A COMBINATION OF WSU HAVING ONE OF THE WEAKEST, EASIEST SCHEDULES EVER IN WSU HISTORY COMBINED WITH WSU WINNING BY 75, WHICH BOTH THINGS COMBINED CAN, IS PROBABLY A GOOD INDICATOR THAT WSU WIN 17 GAMES, CBI.
PLEASE READ, COMPREHEND ALL THE ABOVE, WHAT IT MEANS, SAYS, CLARIFIES, LOGIC, ETC.
