Dick didn't hand over the job to Tony until he had developed that phenomenal class of Cowgill, Low, Weaver,Harmeling, Henry. Dick grabbed the brass ring on a bunch of under the radar talent, and acknowledged as much on a number of occasions. He set Tony up to succeed, and I am pretty sure he advised his son to strike while the iron was still hot, and get out of Dodge when he did.
Hello, last place - here we come!
- Thread starter YakiCoug
- Start date
I remember Dick acknowledging he never signed all of the recruits he offered before but I think you are taking his comments out of context unless I am just not remembering correctly. That definitely has happened more than once.
My overall point is while some elements are more important than others if you are a good coach (knowledge, manage, recruit, connect, etc.) typically you will win eventually in Pullman. If you have major flaws in some or all those departments WSU will definitely expose them unless you are able to survive and adjust. It's that simple. It's been pretty rare over the years that we didn't know which coach we were getting from day 1 as much as we hoped it would work out.
Just one view, could be wrong.
This season is not yet over and one wonders how it will turn out. The team has been competitive in most games. They have blown a few winnable games and now can make a move or fade into the sunset.The two upcoming games may be winnable but both Utah and Colorado have good talent and are on the upswing. A split would be welcome but it will be hard to do.
To me that leads back to the point that the coaches who haven't found success in Pullman weren't good coaches (even Peter Principle) to begin with. I still think if the AD worked a little harder, was more thoughtful, and had a clearer vision for what works in Pullman that it would lead to better results but that's just me.
Last edited:
It's definitely not by having the attitude that either it can't be done or it's pure luck.
Nah, it is 100% all about money and support. Ernie Kent is being paid quite well but if you want better just offer them more.
Pullman is no tougher than a lot of places. Not trying is not an excuse. Not that I think Ernie is going anywhere anytime soon.
Pullman is no tougher than a lot of places. Not trying is not an excuse. Not that I think Ernie is going anywhere anytime soon.
Well 26 of the coaches whose teams made the NCAA tournament last year made less than Kent. So there are a few out there that we could entice.
I don't know enough about things to say if they will work or not but on the topic of 'getting it done in Pullman' I think the Cougs, in both football and basketball, need to differentiate. The Seahawks were first on the train of defensive football and getting big corners and were drafting these steals. The league started copying and the steals were no longer available. This is why I think it's difficult to go with a style similar to other schools. Some of WSU's best/fan friendly teams went against the grain.
Bennett played a different style and got players for that style, ones that were perhaps overlooked for other styles. The 94 football team, loaded up on defense and played like a soccer match. Both of those teams were fun to watch, albeit different than the traditional fun to watch. The 97 team featured the fab 5 when having 5 wide receivers wasn't common. Now WSU has 50. The true Air Raid is different enough to be somewhat successful here. In 87 when Erickson came he brought the one back 3 wr set which not mainstream at the time.
For WSU to be successful I'd like to see them play a defensive game like Bennett did or a completely wide open game like a Paul Westhead team. Neither system would likely win a national title but the teams could be a pain in the ankle to play against and provide some wins and be fun to watch.
Bennett played a different style and got players for that style, ones that were perhaps overlooked for other styles. The 94 football team, loaded up on defense and played like a soccer match. Both of those teams were fun to watch, albeit different than the traditional fun to watch. The 97 team featured the fab 5 when having 5 wide receivers wasn't common. Now WSU has 50. The true Air Raid is different enough to be somewhat successful here. In 87 when Erickson came he brought the one back 3 wr set which not mainstream at the time.
For WSU to be successful I'd like to see them play a defensive game like Bennett did or a completely wide open game like a Paul Westhead team. Neither system would likely win a national title but the teams could be a pain in the ankle to play against and provide some wins and be fun to watch.
I don't see anyone questioning the need for D-1 talent. In fact it's probably assumed most of the time. I guess we can debate whether our current roster has satisfied that "caveat" currently. I don't really see even a fringe NBA player at the moment but again that's up for discussion. Maybe Franks or Flynn in the developmental league?
Any system needs some emphasis on the defensive end. We never have seen a lot of success without it. I am struggling to see how we can compete with our current system if it is running the way Kent envisioned.
Ava - you dwarf any basketball knowledge I may have (basically none). That said, Caleb Forrest, Daven Harmeling, Robbie Cowgill and others had a good laugh at this post.
The problem I see with our defense is the same problem I see with our offense. We don't have any bigs who can play through contact on offense, and they aren't physical or athletic enough to play tough D.
As for talent , Cowgill was an elite athlete. Harmeling and Forrest not so much, but you didn't mention Weaver and Baynes who had a lot more to do with WSU success along with Cowgill. Remember that when Weaver and Cowgill left WSU was under 500 in conference
As for talent , Cowgill was an elite athlete. Harmeling and Forrest not so much, but you didn't mention Weaver and Baynes who had a lot more to do with WSU success along with Cowgill. Remember that when Weaver and Cowgill left WSU was under 500 in conference
I don't buy the "Pullman" is tough to recruit too. Its 80 miles South of Gonzaga. I don't buy it as June gets plenty of recruits but does seem to have some problems with coaching 'em up and injuries.
Many have gotten plenty of players and in fact if you don't think CJ is a top west side recruit you would be wrong. Kent (finally) got a reasonable staff in place. He just needs to stop taking margainal JC's. Where is Chidom? Where is Cooper?
Where are all the Europeans? The Aussies?
Where is a servicable center?
Many have gotten plenty of players and in fact if you don't think CJ is a top west side recruit you would be wrong. Kent (finally) got a reasonable staff in place. He just needs to stop taking margainal JC's. Where is Chidom? Where is Cooper?
Where are all the Europeans? The Aussies?
Where is a servicable center?
Under .500 but still a NIT team and competitive with most teams, something EK has shown to be incapable of accomplishing.
Of course we still had 2 NBA players on that 8-10 team. Not promoting or slamming Kent, just pointing out that we have never been competitive without some pretty good talent, and that talent has been few and far between over most of the years I have followed Cougar hoops
One the recruiting has to take a tick up,that is for sure. Elleby is going to surprise,no red shirt for him. The team needs another big man or two for next year.. This team has been competitive with most teams this year and has beaten a couple of solid teams. So posters have wanted the cougs to be competitive,that has happened.The wins have not come frequently enough and they fell below .500 for the first time. One hopes they can gain some momentum over the last month.
I don't totally buy it either for all of the above. I wonder whether we are working hard enough to find the players or maybe many coaches can't project the talent. As Ava pointed out Dick Bennett came in and found guys who could play right away. Of course they had to develop over a couple of years but that's where the projection comes in. June has brought in talent as well to a program with no more history than the men.
The coaches that don't recruit well probably aren't the best at evaluating talent we can get to Pullman or GU could get to Spokane a decade ago. Anyone can spot UA or UCLA level talent. It's the Richie Frahms and Robbie Cowgills where good evaluation comes into play and then developing them once they are in town.
He might be starting right now as a senior in high school. That's not necessarily a good thing.
Talent evaluation is tricky. Yes Dick grabbed the brass ring with that one group and I give him great credit for finding and coaching those guys up. However the track record wasn't si good with under the radar guys over the ensuing 4 years. Forrest, abercrimbie etc weren't taking the Cougs to the NIT. If it wasn't for Klay the cupboard was not well stocked when Tony left.
If what Dick/Tony Bennett accomplished in Pullman or Gonzaga has done up the street doesn't open your eyes I am really not sure what will.
And with 2 future NBA players on the roster. Although I'm not sure what my point is. Hi
Or as I pointed out in another thread, Idaho is better than us and are 8 miles away. A podunk school, located in a backward redneck state, playing in a barn-like facility, in a podunk league with a coach that makes $245,000/year and they attract better talent and are better than us.
I was looking at the Beasley coliseum attendance figures. See page 14. 16-17's average attendance was the lowest since Paul Graham (Bone did come close in his last year). Kinda interesting that in Dick Bennett's first year attendance almost doubled. Kent's first year? Barely a blip over Bone's worst year.
Maybe our new AD can talk Kent into taking a reduced payout and "retiring". He will never get it done, and our fan base frankly just doesn't like him. Ole'.
http://wsucougars.com/documents/2017/10/11/2017_18_Washington_State_Information_Guide.pdf
Or as I pointed out in another thread, Idaho is better than us and are 8 miles away. A podunk school, located in a backward redneck state, playing in a barn-like facility, in a podunk league with a coach that makes $245,000/year and they attract better talent and are better than us.
I was looking at the Beasley coliseum attendance figures. See page 14. 16-17's average attendance was the lowest since Paul Graham (Bone did come close in his last year). Kinda interesting that in Dick Bennett's first year attendance almost doubled. Kent's first year? Barely a blip over Bone's worst year.
Maybe our new AD can talk Kent into taking a reduced payout and "retiring". He will never get it done, and our fan base frankly just doesn't like him. Ole'.
http://wsucougars.com/documents/2017/10/11/2017_18_Washington_State_Information_Guide.pdf
Sometimes we decide to embrace the excuses and make things a lot more difficult than there really are in actuality.
Last edited:
I like Earnie fine. I just don’t think he’s got the fire and desire and cache amongst the youngsters to get it done.
The guys who got it done in Pullman were young and driven. Raveling, Sampson and Tony. They all left. But it was damned glorious while they were there.
I also like Ernie, and he certainly seems quite engaged on the sidelines. The frustration on his face during this recent slide is palpable. We'll see what happens with some line-up changes. He's right in that the defense needs stops to get the offense moving.
The trouble with EK is he thinks talking about the lack of defense to the media is a substitute for actually coaching his players in practice to perform the chore well.
Similar threads
