ADVERTISEMENT

MBK Final: Cougs 61, Idaho 48 (Story + Stats + Highlights + Post Game Presser)

What a terrible game. I've seen better middle school games. Don't know who was worse; WSU, Idaho or the refs. They seemed to be halfway aware when Flynn was in the game. One of the refs decided he needed to try and foul him out midway through the 2nd half. After Ernie had to take him out when he got 4 the team was completely lost. Callison seemed to have no idea how to run the point. I can't begin to explain how bad they looked. The schedule said they were supposed to be on the Pac-12 network, but I didn't see any TV people there.
 
Game was televised by Pac-12 Network. Agree, it wasn't the most artistic college basketball game ever played. Both teams shot below 40 percent + combined for 38 fouls + 32 turnovers.
 
Does anyone know if Daniels is hurt or in EK's doghouse? Have not seen him play much lately. He seems to have the potential to be slightly better then our SR guards atleast offensively.
 
Game was on Pac 12 WA. We aren't getting network games at this point. Maybe K-State, although that's probably on another network.

I saw parts of the game and thought there were a bunch of interesting calls from the refs.
 
It was a victory over a decent team. The next game should be interesting. KSU is 8-1 with only a 1 point loss on Maryland's home court. They have an experienced team. They have a big team with a 6'9 and 6'10 guy in the starting lineup. So the wags here who think the cougs look terrible and playing worse than a middle school will be expecting a 40 pt blowout? I think that the cougs can be competitive with them.We will how big a favorite ,Las Vegas odds makers make KSU in this game.
 
I'll take an ugly win over a hard fought, played great, loss any day. This team is just not that talented, but a team that finds ways to win can be fun to watch. There are enough pieces that if everybody plays consistently and knows their role and excepts that role we can get some wins. I really don't see this team winning very many PAC 12 games but 2 wins will double last years total so the bar is pretty low for improvement.
 
Idaho a decent team? Maybe they are but they sure weren't last night. The way we played last night we'd have been blown out by a decent team. I don't know where they had the TV guys at but they weren't in their usual place.
 
The defense was pretty good. We couldnt beat a good team shooting the ball that bad but we would have beat both SJS and New Orleans with the defensive effort from last night. Flynn is growing every game and Franks likewise. Much of our poor offensive effort came while Flynn was on the bench with foul trouble.

No question it will take a much better game to not be embarrased by K State but another good defensive effort could help.
 
I am hoping for about 6-7 PAC 12 wins.. Sometimes a ugly game is OK if the players are giving a 100 % effort.The cougs should have beaten SJS and New Orleans but they did not out forth the effort needed to beat these types of teams.. Sometimes games just turn out to be ugly. It kind of reminded of the early Bennett days when people cheered ugly ball. :)
 
The big difference with the early Bennett teams was lots fewer turnovers. Another interesting thing is that Dicks teams didnt get forced into near as many tough shots late in the shot clock. I watched his practices and the only slow down thing in his half court offense was that he wanted to see at least 2 passes before a shot. I actually thought Ravelings early teams were more slow down than Dick. With no shot clock it was often agonizing watching us move the ball around trying to force it in to a double teamed Poudakis.

Not slamming Ernie with the above observations. Ernie was the only guy Dick didnt beat in his three years. Im just not sure why this team cant maintain any defensive energy for 2 games in a row
 
Last edited:
I thought the Cougs played reasonably well in the Ist half. The 2nd half was extremely ugly for both teams.
The Vandals miss Callendret badly. Without him Sanders is the only guy capable of creating his own shots. I thought Flynn looked pretty smooth for a freshman. The Cougs badly need someone else on the floor who can hit the open jumper. Maybe Daniels can do that.

On a side note. Kent has complained about the lack of crowds. It was pretty sparse last night. I wonder if anybody has ever thought that closing off all the closest parking lots and making people walk almost a mile on frozen side walks on a bitterly cold night might not be conducive to drawing a crowd.
 
I definitely thought being without Flynn for almost ten minutes in the second half really hurt our offense. We had almost a 5 minute stretch without a field goal while Flynn was on the bench with 4 fouls.
 
I'm starting to see potential in Franks that I didn't see before but he is still a project and still has a long way to go. He has some of the tools to be a solid stretch 4 but he isn't there yet but he is getting closer with more playing time.
 
Rich Lewis said:
What a terrible game. I've seen better middle school games. Don't know who was worse; WSU, Idaho or the refs. They seemed to be halfway aware when Flynn was in the game. One of the refs decided he needed to try and foul him out midway through the 2nd half. After Ernie had to take him out when he got 4 the team was completely lost. Callison seemed to have no idea how to run the point. I can't begin to explain how bad they looked. The schedule said they were supposed to be on the Pac-12 network, but I didn't see any TV people there.
Click to expand...

It has come to this: when WSU wins, I immediately wonder how crappy the other team is. Flynn is the only reason to even care about this team. Hawkinson has become the big sloth Bone certainly would have made him but Kent gets the official credit. Clifford is the Big Red Slug. The others are a nameless rabble of talentless misfits.
 
Our team is hot garbage. And thats an insult to hot garbage on some nights. Virtually no legitimate PAC 12 talent. Hawkinson and Flynn would probably stick as role players on other bad PAC 12 teams. I have a hard time believing most of our roster would start (or even compete for serious minutes) for below average mid-major schools. This team will be LUCKY to win 4 conference games. I'd say its more likely we go 0-18 than we win more than 4. Unfortunately, I don't see how it gets better. The talent just isn't there and we are not attracting highly regarded recruits to bridge the talent gap. I thought Kent was a good hire. The first year was a mixed bag but overall impressive given what we were able to put together with Bone's scraps. But the last year + have been abysmal. I'm ready to admit I was wrong about Kent. We need someone who runs a system that can win with less talent... because ultimately the talented recruits will start to consider WSU when we win. And as much as some of you older folks don't want to admit it... this current squad is Graham level bad. Sorry. The truth hurts.
 
it seems like it is piling on time, and we shall see if the talent is " hot garbage" as fans here think they are. People seem to like slow ugly ball as coached by the elder Bennett. The reduced shot clock has changed the game. Somehow some fans want to see less talented players play slow ugly ball. The elder Bennett s son speed-ed up the game but left without recruiting like he should have, Perhaps these fans fantasy visualize themselves as church league players being given a chance against the big boys? I will say that the talent is not what it should be and that the coaches have not done the best job possible. But i will continue to support EK until he is no longer the coach.
 
Last edited:
Now is the time for coug posters to make a swift bundle of easy cash.The Las Vegas odds makers have made KSU only a 15.5 pt favorite. Place 1000K to 5000K either in Las Vegas or on Internet betting on KSU to cover. Easy money betting against the "hot garbage "team. A sure bet with no risk!!
 
I don't bet on sports. And good on you if you can afford that steep of a bet! I don't have that kind of money lying around.

Bennetts system worked and as the talent increased, Tony sped things up a bit. I'd rather win 30-29 than lose 90-70. And can we get over the myth that Tony didn't recruit well enough? Bone had a solid foundation to work with and squandered it. Klay, Motum, Thames, Casto... even Abe and Capers were decent contributors who very well may have thrived under a Bennett style system. Joe Harris ended up following Tony to UVA and did pretty well. This idea that he didn't recruit well is absurd. Sure, he missed on some guys but a lot of schools were prepared to make the same mistakes.

We can't recruit the types of players to play "exciting" basketball. Personally, I find winning and being relevant more exciting than running up and down the court bricking open shots then not getting back on defense. But to each his own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bogusto
StormyCOUG42 said:
I don't bet on sports. And good on you if you can afford that steep of a bet! I don't have that kind of money lying around.

Bennetts system worked and as the talent increased, Tony sped things up a bit. I'd rather win 30-29 than lose 90-70. And can we get over the myth that Tony didn't recruit well enough? Bone had a solid foundation to work with and squandered it. Klay, Motum, Thames, Casto... even Abe and Capers were decent contributors who very well may have thrived under a Bennett style system. Joe Harris ended up following Tony to UVA and did pretty well. This idea that he didn't recruit well is absurd. Sure, he missed on some guys but a lot of schools were prepared to make the same mistakes.

We can't recruit the types of players to play "exciting" basketball. Personally, I find winning and being relevant more exciting than running up and down the court bricking open shots then not getting back on defense. But to each his own.
Click to expand...
Well put Stormy. I wholeheartedly agree. ElC's snit with the Bennett's winning style goes beyond rationality.
 
Yes and the snit about it. If a bet is such a sure thing there is no risk involved Otherwise your opinion are just plain horse manure. if one plays the kind of basketball you want with poor players you will get blown out by 20 pts a game. Your idol worship or the Bennetts goes beyond rationality in my opinion
 
I support coach Kent and I'm still optimistic that he can be successful at WSU. However Elcomanche you resorted to childish name calling and continuos slamming of coach Bone. When Bone's recruiting was obviously superior to what Kent has brought in thus far and arguably Bone's over all coaching could be better than Kent's. especially for the price.
 
I'm confident in my assessment of the teams ability to win games. That has nothing to do with the point spread. Im confident WSU is a piss poor PAC 12 school. How much they will lose to a Big 12 opponent is not something I willing to wager thousands on. Besides, I'll never bet against the Cougs. I don't care how bad we are.

I want Kent to succeed. I want to be excited about basketball at WSU again. I just don't see it. I'm not sure how to fix it. How do we convince better talent to come to Pullman? I just don't know. Winning will help. but we need the talent for that. I feel like we are stuck in a chicken v. egg situation. I do believe that Bennetts system played to our lack of atheism and kept us in games we had no business being in. Lowe, Cowgill, Harmelling, and Weaver weren't all world talent but they were smart players that gave 110% in a system that valued effort over talent/atheism. And it made us relevant. The roster we have now would struggle to be competitive in the Big Sky.
 
Definitely want Kent to succeed but we don't have the talent. I was happy with the way conference went in year 1 but that's been the high point. Then the recruiting classes, attrition, and heavy losses.

I'm going to argue about Low, Cowgill, Weaver, and Harmeling not having 'talent'. Weaver got NBA looks and Harmeling was definitely talented until sustaining too many injuries. Add Baynes who is playing in the NBA as well.

Take a look again at the Notre Dame Tournament game and tell me that team wasn't talented and athletic.
 
They were talented. But they played above their talent level. They were not top 10 back to back seasons talented but the system and their efficiency got them there. Anyone here is free to disagree. All I know is Tony had more success in three years than Bone and Kent have at WSU combined. And the league was better then. I'm yet to see up tempo basketball work at WSU... at least not in the last 20+ years.

And no. I'm not just going to support Kent because he's our guy. My allegiance is to the school not the coach. I called Wulff out for his pathetic performance and I'll do the same to Kent. This is year three... we are probably going to finish last in the conference and our recruiting is easily the worst in the PAC as well. When is it supposed to get better.

The fact that you have to use a 14 point loss as a "told you so" moment perfectly illustrates how awful the program has gotten.

So if Kent goes 4-14 this season and 5-13 next season, do we stay the course?
 
What can i say Bone was the bonehead.He was in way over his head. EK at least knows what it takes to be successful at this level. Ie he past his prime? that is the question.He needs some good recruits with his now 3 available scholarships. He should also get rid of one of his ageing coaches for next year.
 
I agree that Kent is a good coach.. But he just hasn't figured out how to recruit to Pullman. Its no easy task, but if he isn't going to adjust his system to accommodate then that falls on him. He's been trying to increase the athleticism by taking on some under the radar projects who's games are raw. They can jump out of the gym but they can't shoot and they are sloppy and get lost at times on the court. I'd rather take the guy thats a step slower without the insane vertical, who has good fundamentals, knows how to play team ball, and can knock down an open 3. But those arent the guys Kent goes for... because thats not the system he runs. I'd like nothing more than for us to be like the Ducks of the late 90s early 2000's. That was fun to watch. But those kids arent about to come to Pullman.

IDK... maybe he somehow gets a couple studs in this next class and we turn thing around quickly, but I just don't have any reason thus far to think that will happen. We need to start nabbing recruits who arent JC transfers that were just okay at the JC level and raw projects. We need guys who can come in right away and play basketball at a high level for more than 5 minutes at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S

MBK Final: UW 78, Cougs 70 (Story + Stats + Postgame)

Replies
0
Views
605
The Beasley Baseline
ScottHood
S
S

MBK Final: Cougs 78, UW 70 (Story + Stats + Highlights + Postgame)

Replies
0
Views
341
The Beasley Baseline
ScottHood
S
S

MBK Final: Cougs 103, Oregon State 97 (OT) (Story + Stats + Highlights + Postgame)

Replies
0
Views
456
The Beasley Baseline
ScottHood
S
S

MBK Final: Cougs 77, Utah 61 (Story + Stats + Highlights + Postgame)

Replies
0
Views
666
The Beasley Baseline
ScottHood
S
S

MBK Final: Cougs 71, Oregon State 67 (Story + Box Score + Highlights + Postgame)

Replies
4
Views
454
The Beasley Baseline
Rich Lewis
Rich Lewis
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back