MBK: 2019-20 Non-conference Schedule
- Thread starter ScottHood
- Start date
Yeah, that has an Ernie Kent feel to it. It is what it is. WSU will be playing at least 2 very good teams in Nebraska & New Mexico State. It's good to have a chance at a reasonable number of wins in non-conference play but I'd like to have at least 5 tougher opponents to get ready for conference play. For EK, it was all about getting as many total wins as possible even if the OOC schedule didn't prepare the team for conference play.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
So what has changed?? i think that you guys will get to" analyze" a lot of PAC 12 ass kickings. Also the NMSU game will not change from last year Maybe i ll fly up to Pullman for the Incarnate Word game or maybe the Omaha $ whomever game. They will be worth the price of admission.
Not the most intriguing. But this schedule was largely put together by the former coaching staff. New Mexico State will be the opponent in the Spokane game.
Will they play USC or UCLA in Spokane as well since they will be hosting them over Christmas break? The Spokane games I’ve gone to the past 3-4 years haven’t drawn that well but crowds were about twice as big as in Pullman.
PS - I remember going to a game vs UCLA in the Spokane Arena in the mid 90s that was sold out. Of course that was before gu invented basketball and when UCLA was a lot more of a brand.
As if that wasn't going to be the case if Kent was still clowning around Pullman...
The only Non Conference Losses I see on that Schedule:
Nebraska, George Mason(Has gone to final 4, won past championship game) , New Mexico St, St Clara
So I see 7,8,9,10 wins on, at, from that Nonconference Schedule.
So 7, 8,9,10 nonconference wins
+
4 to 8 conference wins
=
11(7+4), 12(8+4), 13(9+4, 8+5, 7+6,etc), 14(10+4, 9+5, 8+6,etc), 15(10+5, 9+6, 8+7,etc), 16(10+6,9+7,8+8), 17(10+7, 9+8)
So 12,13,14,15,16 wins, and 14 wins, bubble 500, Bubble CBI season is REALISTIC
So WSU should be able to win at least 12,13 games, and 1,2,3 games better then Kent, with Smith.
Thats what Coach K could would do.
And thats what Smith should be able to do.
Thats logical, reasonable, rational, REALISTIC.
Nebraska, George Mason(Has gone to final 4, won past championship game) , New Mexico St, St Clara
So I see 7,8,9,10 wins on, at, from that Nonconference Schedule.
So 7, 8,9,10 nonconference wins
+
4 to 8 conference wins
=
11(7+4), 12(8+4), 13(9+4, 8+5, 7+6,etc), 14(10+4, 9+5, 8+6,etc), 15(10+5, 9+6, 8+7,etc), 16(10+6,9+7,8+8), 17(10+7, 9+8)
So 12,13,14,15,16 wins, and 14 wins, bubble 500, Bubble CBI season is REALISTIC
So WSU should be able to win at least 12,13 games, and 1,2,3 games better then Kent, with Smith.
Thats what Coach K could would do.
And thats what Smith should be able to do.
Thats logical, reasonable, rational, REALISTIC.
Fun to speculate, but I am not sure any of our projections even rise to the level of educated guesses. On the positive side we have the athletes to improve our defense immensely from the last 2 seasons. In addition we have some experience returning. Most over looked is the fact that the bottom half of the conference is always weak by power 5 conference standards. Weakness at the top last year was bad, but bottom half was fairly typical.
Biggest concern is finding enough shooters in this 3 point era. 9-4 non conference might be doable, but 7-6 is just as likely. 6 conference wins wouldn't surprise me.
Biggest concern is finding enough shooters in this 3 point era. 9-4 non conference might be doable, but 7-6 is just as likely. 6 conference wins wouldn't surprise me.
Last edited:
Shooters:
Elleby, Cannon, Bonton, Ali, Robinson, Kunc, Marko
Bonton, and Ali tied for number 1 shooters at about 36 to 39 to 42% from 3 point range
2.Kunc, about 35% to 38% from 3
3. Elleby about 34% to 37% from 3
4. Cannon about 33% to 36% from 3
5.Marko about 32% to 35% from 3
6. Robinson about 31% to 34% from 3
This team does have shooters
Pulling numbers out of thin air is not logical, rational or reasonable. Stats are facts. Cannon shot 33%, Ali shot 32% and Robinson shot 28% from beyond the arc, those are facts. Saying a player will shot 35 to 38 or 39 to 41% is an opinion/projection and is in he future so can’t be considered a fact. You list a 7 footer who shot zero 3 pointers as a shooter? Where do you get this stuff?
Last edited:
Guess you dont know what the word ABOUT ABOUT means.
I did say shot ABOUT, etc.
While those percentages were not EXACT. They are, were AT LEAST SEMI CLOSE TO THE EXACT PERCENTS THEY ACTUALLY SHOT.
As to where I got, why I named off those ABOUT percents:
I had heard, read sometime in the past, that those shooters I listed, were ABOUT semi ok, semi good shooters.
And I had seen, read that their percents, but had forgotten the EXACT percents, but knew the percents were ABOUT, semi close to what I said when I said so and so shot ABOUT such and such percent.
As far as Marko, I had heard, read that he was a semi ok, semi average, semi good 3 point shooter overseas, and that he was about 31,32% to about 34,35% give or take, + or - 1,2% in either way to both the lower end, and higher end of the ABOUT range.
If I either hadnt thought, remember, reading, seeing it somewhere, and if I, altho not remembering the exact percents, didnt know, remember the ABOUT percents, percent ranges, I wouldnt have, be posting the ABOUT percents, percent range
I certainly am not, would not lie, make up the percents out of thin air, without any clue, rememberance, thought, or thinking of what the about percents are, were about.
And if the percents were lied, made up, pulled out of thin air the percents would not have had the word ABOUT, and the percents would probably have been nowhere even remotely close to what the actual percents were.
Your right about that. They are not drop dead shooters.
But ABOUT 33 to 43% 3 point shooting by the teams best 3 point shooters while not awesome, is not horribly bad either and is just barely good enough to put up points, and that when combined with good defense could maybe help win some games.
Also those were last years numbers when the team was less experienced, with 1 more year of experience, they might improve.
Then again they might shoot worse.
So will see what happens.
Also Ava, I suspect that a reason why WSU's 3 point shooters didnt shoot better then about 33% to 43%, may be because of Kents bad offense.
If players run and gun, jack up early 3 pointers from further behind the 3 point line, and then if while in the half court offense, stand around, dont move, pass ball around the perimeter until the shot clock is at 2 seconds left, and then jack up a 3 pointer, with a defender in face that almost blocks the 3 pointer, if that happens a lot, which that might probably have happened a lot, the shooters 3 point percentages might not be as good, and be about 33% to 43%, instead of better then that.
If players run and gun, jack up early 3 pointers from further behind the 3 point line, and then if while in the half court offense, stand around, dont move, pass ball around the perimeter until the shot clock is at 2 seconds left, and then jack up a 3 pointer, with a defender in face that almost blocks the 3 pointer, if that happens a lot, which that might probably have happened a lot, the shooters 3 point percentages might not be as good, and be about 33% to 43%, instead of better then that.
Just going by the mechanics of our returnig guys, only Kunc has a real good stroke. Ali has a slow release and is short. He isn't going yo get a lot of good looks. Cannon has a decent stroke, but a lot of great leapers don't become good 3 point shooters, even with good mechanics. I wont speculate on Bonton and Henson because I havent seen them shoot
I do agree that Kents offense hurt our 3 point shooting. Not because guys were jacking up quick 3s, but because our half court offense was so stagnant guys were not getting good catch and shoot looks.
I do agree that Kents offense hurt our 3 point shooting. Not because guys were jacking up quick 3s, but because our half court offense was so stagnant guys were not getting good catch and shoot looks.
One of the beauties of Bennett's offense was all the off-ball movement. Derrick Low was perhaps the best Cougar I've seen moving without the ball...really made the defensive player work hard. Kent's offense just had way too much standing around, not a lot of pressure on the defense. Had Kent's teams been able to score at will in transition, that would've helped. But on a set, half-court offense....they were stagnant more often than not.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
I slightly, barely disagree with this.
I understand why you think this.
You probably think that WSU doesnt have the talent, skill, ATHLETICISM, speed, quickness, etc, to do transition, run and gun as a semi baseline, and that even if they could do that, that if they did do that, that they would then not have a good halfcourt offense.
The thing is tho:
1. Smith, while he was at USF Dons, he run and gunned a lot, even tho his players werent as athletic, etc. And his teams still played great defense. And his teams still had great halfcourt offense. And he ran, run and gunned, all over, blew out Stanford.
2. When I was at BBCC Big Bend Community College, Coach Mark Poth did the same as Smith, in that the team was like the Lakers, Sonics, and ran, run and gunned almost all the time, and had awesome defense, and awesome halfcourt offense, and won the Northwest Junior College Championship, DESPITE having the least athletic team in country(Thats despite one of the players who when I beat him off the dribble, for what seemed like should have been a easy lay up, recovered from behind to goal tend, just barely miss blocked shot, pinned basketball mid to higher up on the backboard(Just think, since thats lack of athleticism at the JC level, imagine the comparison to the midmajor, P5 level)
So this shows that can run and gun as base, and have awesome defense, and play awesome halfcourt offense, and that dont have to have athletic players to do that.
Actually that wasnt my reason. Transition O can be stopped often enough by sending guys back quickly off missed shots. You have to have a good half court offense to have an offense, no matter how athletic your team is. The Bennetts made a living off teams throwing up quick shots when the transition wadnt available.
Thats why I said GOOD RUN AND GUN, and PLUS GREAT HALF COURT OFFENSE, and a great defense.
You see what you have to do is:
1. Like Leach, you have to drill, practice, execute over and over until, so that you dont mess up.
Part of the reason why Run and Gun doesnt work, a lot of the time is because of SLOPPY play, TURN OVERS, because of BAD PASSES, and.being OUT OF CONTRO, and because Jack up quick 3 pointers.
All a good run and gun is:
A. QUICK, FAST,
B. UNDER CONTROL
C. GOOD SPACING.
D. GOOD PASSING.
E. GOOD BALL HANDLING IN A HURRY.
F. GOOD DECISION MAKING.
G. TRANSITIONING TO A GOOD OFFENSE WHEN, IF STOPPED
H. TRANSITIONING TO A GOOD DEFENSE IF STOPPED, TURN BALL OVER.
Doing all that, while looks easy, is not easy, take practice, reps, executing until can do it.
2. Its more opportunistic then base.
3. But the reason why it can be base.
A. You start by play a great agressive effective force turnover defense that you can then transition, run, gun with.
B. If you do that well enough, run, gun becomes your base. Thats what the Sonics, BBCC did.
C. You have to be the best conditioned. Thats why a good run gun coach will do conditioning, speed, etc, drills until the players almost die, pass out, etc, to be the best conditioned team.
This is what a inner city highschool coach did so that the last place highschool team, won the state, national highschool championship.
D. And you have to practice, rep, execute a great defense, and a great offense.
E. Then you have practice turning defensive forced turnovers, stops, rebounds, into run and gun points.
F. Then you have to practice transitioning to good halfcourt, if your run and gun is stopped.
Doing all of the above is EXTREMELY HARD, not easy,
And thats why the best type of coaches to do this kind of run and gun game, is Smith, Tony Bennet, Dick Bennet, etc.
Dick Bennet would have been a excellent run and gun coach if he had wanted to, and if had learned how to do this.
So you dont have to have the best, most athletic team to effectively run and gun
To transition on offense the opportunity must present itself. You can’t just say we are going to play up tempo run and gun offense and it just happens. The opportunity usually comes from your defense by way of steals and missed shots. When those opportunities arise I’m all for taking advantage of them and I’m definitely for doing things to create those opportunities but if you can’t score with your half court offense you will never be a really good team. One dementional teams are to easy to scout and to easy plan for to ever be really effective. Most teams that run and gun are not as one deminsional as they seem. Example being Nolan Richardson’s 40 minutes of hell at Arkansas... yes they pushed the pace on offense but it all started with the defense
Yes you have to have the opportunity to transition to a up tempo run and gun.
But even if you have the opportunity, if you dont execute it right, it will usually be SLOPPY, BAD PASSES, TURN OVERS, JACK UP 3's, RAT BALL.
Also a team can either run and gun whenever have opportunities, even if those opportunities were to be rare.
Or a team can CREATE MORE LEGIT OPPORTUNITIES to run and gun, to the point where create so many legit opportunities to run and gun, that it semi becomes more of a semi base then just being opportunistic to run a gun a little tiny bit.
Thats what the Sonics, Lakers, BBCC, that last place inner city highschool team that won the championship, did.
Also thats what Nolan Richardson did at Arkansas.
And like I said it cant be one dimensional, that you need 3 things
A AWESOME DEFENSE
A AWESOME HALFCOURT OFFENSE
A AWESOME RUN AND GUN OFFENSE.
I remember 45 years when Rav got the job. He said 75 % of the offense was going to be fast break. Not a good formula then, not a good formula for Kent. As just noted, the only way to get transition opportunities is from steals or dominating the boards. Good teams dont give up lots of turnovers and we have not had the kind of guys who could control the boards. Tony disavowed transition O to a fault, dropping 4 guys after every shot and never pressuring the perimeter. Transition scoring is something you take advantage of, not something you count on for a significant portion of your scoring
Wait, did mik invent a JC national championship he allegedly witnessed? This is epic!
I am pretty sure that in about either 1992,1993, 19995,1996, that BBCC, Big Bend Community College, made it to the championship game of the play offs of the Northwest Asssociation of Junior Colleges.
I was there at BBCC, at the time. Thats what I remember. Now maybe I am misremembering. I thought BBCC had won that championship game. Maybe BBCC just made the championship, but didnt win it. I remember BBCC making at least the championship game. But maybe I am misremembering. I can almost guarantee, pretty much almost promise you BBCC made it to at least the game before the championship. I was there, at BBCC, but keep in mind this was about 25 to 27 years ago, so maybe I am misremembering.
So because of that you dont have to make a big deal out of it.
Also the point was not BBCC winning the championship.
The point was about BBCC, Poth running, and gunning.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES PLAYOFFS, CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.
NOT A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A DUMBASS, JERK, DICK
You misremember a lot, a bunch, quite often. Including how to use an inside voice on the internet.
BBCC was known as the RUNNIN VIKES.
They scored ABOUT 85 to 95 points per game, and scored ABOUT 73 at ultimate worst, and ABOUT 123 at ultimate best.
They played a defense much like Tark the Sharks, UNLV Amoeba Defense.
Forced a lot of stops, turnovers, and because of that was able to run and gun a lot.
And on the uncommon times their uptempo, run and gun game was stopped, they transitioned into a pretty good half court offense.
So if little ole BBCC can do it, anybody can do it. You dont have to have the best athletic players.
And thats the point, about what it takes for a college to run and gun, and that doesnt take athletic players.
The point is not about BBCC, or about their playoff run, etc.
They scored ABOUT 85 to 95 points per game, and scored ABOUT 73 at ultimate worst, and ABOUT 123 at ultimate best.
They played a defense much like Tark the Sharks, UNLV Amoeba Defense.
Forced a lot of stops, turnovers, and because of that was able to run and gun a lot.
And on the uncommon times their uptempo, run and gun game was stopped, they transitioned into a pretty good half court offense.
So if little ole BBCC can do it, anybody can do it. You dont have to have the best athletic players.
And thats the point, about what it takes for a college to run and gun, and that doesnt take athletic players.
The point is not about BBCC, or about their playoff run, etc.
I was there at BBCC. And a 6th place team doesnt seem like a PLAYOFF, tournament team, unless your saying that BBCC finished 6th in the PLAYOFF TOURNAMENT. Which altho I dont remember BBCC finishing that low(6th place)in the playoff tournament, I suppose its theoretical possible that they could have finished that low(6th) in the playoffs, and that I theoretically misremembering it.
But I doubt that because a 6th place low finish in the playoffs, if it is even possible to finish that low in playoffs, would likely be a 1st or 2nd round playoff finish.
And I remember at least 3,4,5+ playoff games. And altho BBCC would have been ok with a 1st, 2nd round playoff finish, I dont think there would have been the mass celebration, hysteria, that was there, if BBCC had only finished 1st,2nd round of playoffs. I think there would have been a letdown if that had happened. And there wasnt a letdown.
If you mean 6th place finish in the regular season, with no playoff appearance, thats wrong, because BBCC did AS A ABSOLUTE FACT GOTO THE PLAYOFFS DURING ONE OF THE YEARS I WAS THERE.
So the only way that it would be possible that BBCC didnt goto the playoffs those years, would be those years being the wrong years.
But that cant be because I was at BBCC, the Academic Years of: 1991-1992(1st year I was at BBCC). 1992-1993(2nd Year I was at BBCC). Either 1995-1996, or 1996-1997(3rd Year I went to BBCC)
One of those years BBCC went to at least the 3rd round of the playoffs at mininum
I also went to BBCC for a 4th year from 1997-1998, but BBCC didnt goto the playoffs that year, an or if did goto playoffs, did not have a 3rd round or better playoff finish, and if went to playoffs, that year, was knocked out of 1st round of playoffs.
But its a absolute fact that BBCC went to the playoffs 1 of the years I was at BBCC, and I am pretty dam sure that BBCC had finished at least 3rd round in playoffs during 1 of the years I was at BBCC
But hey lets continue to make a big deal about this.
I
He was also a good speech 101, mass communications instructor for the journalism program.
I was in that class.
