The way that i see t is that all positions are open for starting and playing time. I really cannot see any player who i feel will be a certain starter next year. That is both good and possibly bad for the team, One, the unexpected loss of Flynn and Franks took away a lot of experience.points and rebounds.The good is that the returning players can have a big bump up and show a big improvement. Two,this is a good recruiting class and several players are capable of earning playing time.The team promises to be quicker,faster and more athletic. The team will be deeper and hopefully more cohesive. Can Kent mold the players into a cohesive unit and players take up the scoring and rebounds lost? It will be an interesting season next year. The defense should be more improved. But will the players be able to generate points both outside and inside the paint.?
Next year s team.
- Thread starter ElComanche
- Start date
This is by far the worst recruiting class in the PAC 12. Does it have potential? Yes. are many of the players intriguing? Yes. But on paper this class is just like all Kent’s other classes lots of what ifs and possible potential based on highlight clips and average JC numbers. So far Elleby is the only true PAC 12 caliber recruit and he is on the lower end compared to other PAC 12 recruits as far as rankings go. Does that mean these guys will fail? of course not but they certainly don’t inspire confidence from the fans or strike fear in the hearts of the rest of the league.
Interesting comments. I was looking at which players may start. It will not strike"fear" into opponent s hearts.So one cannot measure "on paper" if these guys will be PAC 12 quality athletes. However, i see the physical potential and will not hedge on what ifs and possible potential.I see a group pf players who do have the potential to be better than the "paper" average. I do have more confidence than you. Will i be right? Time will only tel. However ,i have seen a lot of players and this group seem.on videos,to have the physical abilities and skill sets to make the transition. I have been wrong before but i think this group has a chance to succeed. However,we will see when they are matched up with veteran D1 athletes how they perform
Pretty sure the Cowgill class was close to the worst in the PAC 10 on paper, so I don't go by that.
Not sure what to expect next year, because I have still not figured out what happened this season. I don't think the 6-0 start can be explained simply by a team shooting lights out. The wheels came off and this team under achieved for much of the season. On paper next years team simply doesn't look to the have the upside without Franks and Flynn I think the key to improvement is with Chidum, Acquaah, and Skaggs more than counting on a bunch of the newcomers to step up right away. I do expect Robinson, Wade, and Elleby to contribute right away.
Not sure what to expect next year, because I have still not figured out what happened this season. I don't think the 6-0 start can be explained simply by a team shooting lights out. The wheels came off and this team under achieved for much of the season. On paper next years team simply doesn't look to the have the upside without Franks and Flynn I think the key to improvement is with Chidum, Acquaah, and Skaggs more than counting on a bunch of the newcomers to step up right away. I do expect Robinson, Wade, and Elleby to contribute right away.
I would say those 3 are the ones most likely to contribute next year out of pure necessity. I like the class overall, there will be successes and failures as always. In a better situation they would be allowed to develope slowly with more limited roles than they will probably be forced into next year. Arguably one of our best new comers last year looked to be the worst on paper, that being Skaggs
Took the words right out of my mouth. A couple of middling JC guys and a 15 year-old from Eastern Europe (no offense kids, hope you do great). Signed at the last minute.
The "15year old" from Eastern Europe may turn out to be a huge surprise from the posters knocking him.Of course,he has to get stronger but he has a great skill set,good quickness and leaping ability and plays defense.I think that the recruiting class is Kent s best so far and i expect more from this group than most people do.Many players look good on paper but never pan out. Of course,many JC s never pan out but some do and contribute right away for their teams.It will be an interesting year.
I like the group too. Biggest problem is loss of key experience. We just became a young team again, despite number of upper classmen. Of course I think last years team under achieved, so the record could actually improve. Still wondering what happened to that team in November that was playing good d and getting nice ball movement for good looks
I like the Eastern European kid as a recruit at this late stage simply based on potential. Although I personally think quickness will be an issue for him more than an advantage. That is however one of our problems with recruiting we are scrambling to sign players late in the game when most of the good players are gone. I think this is a class of decent recruits when you consider how late in the game we signed them but why are we not getting players in the early signing period or regular signing period. It always seems we are late to the dinner table and end up with the veggie dish no one else wanted or table scraps. Sometimes that dish might be the best part of the whole dinner but usually not.
The last 3 years I believe our fall class has included 1 high school player this year, zero 2 years ago, and 1 again 3 years ago. While you don't want to sign players for the sake of signing players it's clearly an issue. We aren't winning many battles in the fall although I really think Elleby and Acquaah were good wins. Just far too rare.
Biggest difference between the Low/Weaver/Cogwill class and this latest one signed by EK is that all of that class recruited by the Bennetts were HS kids. I've never been a fan of bringing in more JCs than frosh, I don't think you ever attain stability or have enough time for players to gel as a unit when you are constantly bringing in that many JCs. Doesn't mean the team won't be successful....Sampson turned the program around with JC all americans Lewis and Derrick...but long term, the odds are not as good. I recognize that Kent may have to settle for JCs...I just wished they were like Lewis and Derrick.
Regarding the Slovenian, until I can find some statistics for him...which are near impossible to find...I can't read how good he might be. Video doesn't mean as much to me as it does to others simply because I can't tell how good the competition is. I hope he turns out, and he is an incoming freshman, which I prefer.
Glad Cougar
Actually Kunc and Elleby are classified as HS players this year. I guess that "scraps" are available to all the teams. There are many other teams frantically looking for" table scraps" . The new transfer vogue ,pro aspirations and Grad transfer rules have changed the recruiting landscape. I like Kunc,Elleby and three year juco Cannon, who are younger players. The old model of team loyalty and college graduation is no longer in vogue.I truly believe that Coach Allen was not pulling his weight and therefor was let go. Your top recruiters have to basically live on the road and sacrifice family time for full time recruiting. In the isolation of Pullman,this is more true. I think that you will see the cougs more actively involved in recruiting this next cycle of recruiting at a much earlier time. As to avabob and the letdown of the team last year,i think it boils down to team chemistry. They just stopped playing together as a unit.. They really did not have a "leader" , someone who could relate to and be accepted as the team leader. Either Acquaah or Robinson has to emerge and bring the team the team together. If this does not happen ,we will again have an under achieving team.
The other thing with the Low/Weaver class was that it was year 2 so there was a lot more patience.
For Kunc the competition appeared very low. You can't extrapolate too much from highlights and even the best competition doesn't mean a whole lot moving to the Pac 12. Other offers can provide some reassurance. If Purdue did have interest in Kunc that wouldn't hurt.
I was all over the signing of Skaggs. While I think we need someone to push him into a role that is more suited to his talents (unless he gains the lateral quickness to stay in front of anyone) he showed he was a good pickup. Again, nobody of real note wanted Weaver or Cowgill but they ended up working out. It would be nice to be beating a bunch of high majors for recruits but we typically are going to need some of these "under-the-radar" players to project.
So question here. We have a Head Coach, 3 Asst Coaches, and a Recruiting Coordinator. 15 Schollies, correct? So 4 a year, assuming guys aren't redshirting. Maybe 5. So each coach needs to find one guy, per year. How is that a fulltime, on the road job? And if you are saying that only one assistant is a bona fide recruiter, that seems to be a problem. Caveat - I don;t know how it works in College Basketball. But in Football, we have 10 coaches out there trying to land 25 guys a year. That math is a little harsher than 4 for 4.
It is not that simple and people who are associated with recruiting knows that it is not Just ask any top recruiter and he will tell you that it is a full time job.
Also, only 13 scholarships. WSU is never going to out recruit name schools for much talent. Maybe one every 3 or 4 years. The rest have to be under the radar kids with upside. Also, I have never been s fan of JC kids either. Prefer to have no more than a couple on the roster. However ELC brings up a good point with the changing landscape of the game, including no allegiance if a kid can transfer out for a better gig. I would still love to get a couple of Elleby caliber kids next November, but there are better JC kids out there than we have been getting.
WSU does not have a designated recruiter neither does any other school. We have a recruiting cordnator who works out the schedule so coaches can maximize their time and see as many potential recruits as possible. Whether or not the coordinator can actually be involved in off campus recruiting depends on how many assistant coaches are actively recruiting off campus. All schools recruit by committee it is the job of the whole staff including the head coach. There are often coaches who have more connections in say California or maybe the mid west so they tend to specialize in that area but recruiting is a crazy fast paced game anymore and way more national and even international than it used to be. I’ve been part of the process in just about every aspect recruiter, parent of recruit, coach of recruit and opposing coach of recruit.
Last edited:
The gist of whay you say is basically true,However each staff has a a "coach" who is basically known as a recruiter. Look at UCLA who just fired Grace who is or was known as their recruiter and built his reputation on that, The responsibilities of each coach varies. I would guess that when Kent basically fired Allen,the coordinator was then freed to go recruiting and he has done so,probably living on the road. A change was necessary and Kent was probably feeling the heat.He needed an new "ace recruiter" and shook up his staff
I generally have not been fully enamored with the recruiting the past few years, but WSU's two best players who are bolting from the program....Flynn & Franks...were recruited by Allen. Same with DeVonte Lacy (under Bone's tenure) and Roberto Gittens, who unfortunately didn't make it into school but was probably the best recruit EK would have gotten up to this point. I don't know enough about other players and who Allen perhaps should have landed....but IMO he really hasn't been the key problem in WSU's shortcomings. I also don't believe EK fired Allen. Curtis saw an opportunity to coach for his own former coach and perhaps land a more secure job than what he might face at WSU with Kent. Speculation on my part...
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
Allen took a big pay cut,of that i am sure of. He is reunited with two coaches who may not outlast Kent.It may be a disaster in the making.The the two coaches are bad and Allen is blessed in that he only has to stumble out the door to find potential recruits at is door step.The recruitment of Franks and Flynn is not a major accomplishment because not many teams wanted them. In the scheme of things they were the best players available to a recruiter of Allen s stature
Another thing which strikes me is the poor attendance for all home basketball games. The reasons are many and basketball attendance is down on a national level .While there were some good players on last year s team,there was not really a player people would want to watch. Malachi Flynn and Franks were the stars but not "exciting" basketball players.. The newcomers like Elleby,Cannon and Kunc have more promise as crowd pleasers The fans want to see high flying dunks,blocked shots and more wins. If the wins come,i think that more students will turn out. I think that these young players will get more playing time than fans are thinking. It will be all hands on deck as Kent cannot afford not to play above .500 ball next season.Just a though,we will see how it plays out..
This is a very salient point - with the prolilferation of transfers and early departures, leaning toward a JC-oriented recruiting model may actually provide a program with more stability than bringing in potential four year recruits, developing them up and then having them bail via pro ball (Franks) or transfer (Flynn).
At least with a JC guy you know he's going to come in relatively matured physically, you know what his game is shaping up as, and he doesn't have the option of bailing after two years.
Plus, in the case of an at-risk coach, the subsequent coach isn't saddled with a roster recruited by the departing coach for another 3 years.
You bring attendance up frequently. Attendance is horrible because we are not winning, do not appear to be building towards winning, and (in my opinion), WSU fans don't particularly care for CEK. Your assumption above is 1/3 correct. Fans want wins. I had season tickets during the Bennett years. That was not high flying BB. It was a winning team with likable players and respected coaches. Dick Bennett doubled attendance (and wins) in his first year, even though we had games like UCLA (50-30),and a losing season overall. But the fans saw that he was building something. Even in Tony's last year when were were a .500 team Beasley was packed. The last home game against ASU with Rochestie's game winner was completely packed. And one of the most exciting sports moments of my life. You can still Google it.
The Raveling and even the Bennett years did not have to compete with PC s,i pads,i phones and all the entertainment readily variable to today's students. It sounds funny but students rather spend inordinate amounts of time before a visual screen than walk a few blocks to see basketball game.
Winning is the all important ingredient when it comes to attendance. If you win the students will take the walk to watch the game which in turn ramps up the excitement level and atmosphere at games which brings in the older crowd. If people don’t feel WSU basketball is putting out a good product it’s to easy theses days to sit home and watch it on dvr. Coming home 8-0 with some good wins looked to be the start but we all know what happened before the ball could really start rolling!
The whole country has seen drops in attendance. There are teams with winning records who have shown drops in attendance. The winning has to occur but the marketing and game atmosphere needs to be looked at.There is no easy answer and hopefully the winning starts. Times have changed and to day s student is much different thanin my time.The old answers do not quite hold water anymore. The support has to come from the administration and facilities are a big concern. In Raveling s day the facilities were considered good.
Last edited:
Well yeah we can talk about all the peripheral factors all day. But the only thing that really matters is winning. Or put it this way - until you are winning, none of the peripheral stuff matters. Because no one is going to come if you are not winning. That's why they keep score.
I don't know if there is one major reason for the decline in interest. Individual opinions vary and are likely personal in nature. For me, I don't get nearly as excited about Cougar basketball after years of living and dying with WSU hoops. My own reason has more to do with the college game imitating the NBA way too much for my taste. I'm not watching nearly as much college hoops as I used to no matter who is playing. I still care very much about the Cougs, I've invested more than 50 years following the program. But it seems way too easy now for me to not make the games a priority and usually find something else to do. I wish it wasn't that way and maybe winning would bring me back a little. But I simply haven't evolved with the game. I'm not a big Ernie Kent fan but my growing disinterest has much more to do with the game itself, especially at the D-I level, than it does with the coach.
I've recently moved to a community with a powerful D-II program that runs a more old-school, fundamental type of play. Perhaps I'll get hooked back into the game by following that program.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
I've recently moved to a community with a powerful D-II program that runs a more old-school, fundamental type of play. Perhaps I'll get hooked back into the game by following that program.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
(and beyond)
OK Bob your memory needs some help. Stats will help. We will start with Beasley's first year.
Year - home record - total record - attendance
73-74 - 4-6; 8-21; 6,600
74-75 - 5-7; 10-16; 6,558
75-76 - 11-1; 19-7; 6,946
New(er) charismatic coach, brand new facility, competitive teams. And yes, no MTV, internet or cellphones.
Yes in 80-81 they came out at 6,159/game to watch a 5-8 home, 10-17 team. After 5 winning seasons in a row. (Raveling)
And yes, Sampson's 1-17 (league) team in 89-90 drew 3,282 (oh wow!) and went 5-9 at home. And beat USC and Wisconsin, and lost to UCLA by 4 (all at home).
Our 17-18 team drew how many? going 8-8 at home with huge wins against Bethune-Cookman and IUPUI. And we haven't had a winning team in 5 years (6 counting 17-18)
For all of your experience and expertise, you keep making excuses for the present, using "facts" from the past that don't really support your point. I try to be positive (rah team 18-19), but quit trying to defend EK by comparing him to Rav and even young Sampson. The first one is an insult to George, the second is irrelevant.
4th year of EK brings us this:
Year; Coach; Overall; League; Home: Attendance
13-14; Bone; 10-21; 3-15; 7-7; 2,769
17-18; Kent; 12-19; 4-14; 8-8; ??
-
-Let's all hope for some miracle in 18-19 (and beyond). But quit making excuses for EK and our attendance. I won't even throw in the student population 20 and 30 and 40 years ago vs. now.
OK Bob your memory needs some help. Stats will help. We will start with Beasley's first year.
Year - home record - total record - attendance
73-74 - 4-6; 8-21; 6,600
74-75 - 5-7; 10-16; 6,558
75-76 - 11-1; 19-7; 6,946
New(er) charismatic coach, brand new facility, competitive teams. And yes, no MTV, internet or cellphones.
Yes in 80-81 they came out at 6,159/game to watch a 5-8 home, 10-17 team. After 5 winning seasons in a row. (Raveling)
And yes, Sampson's 1-17 (league) team in 89-90 drew 3,282 (oh wow!) and went 5-9 at home. And beat USC and Wisconsin, and lost to UCLA by 4 (all at home).
Our 17-18 team drew how many? going 8-8 at home with huge wins against Bethune-Cookman and IUPUI. And we haven't had a winning team in 5 years (6 counting 17-18)
For all of your experience and expertise, you keep making excuses for the present, using "facts" from the past that don't really support your point. I try to be positive (rah team 18-19), but quit trying to defend EK by comparing him to Rav and even young Sampson. The first one is an insult to George, the second is irrelevant.
4th year of EK brings us this:
Year; Coach; Overall; League; Home: Attendance
13-14; Bone; 10-21; 3-15; 7-7; 2,769
17-18; Kent; 12-19; 4-14; 8-8; ??
-
-Let's all hope for some miracle in 18-19 (and beyond). But quit making excuses for EK and our attendance. I won't even throw in the student population 20 and 30 and 40 years ago vs. now.
My attitude and experience over the years us not unlike yours Glad. I probably still follow the Cougs a bit more than you, but I don't enjoy watching other teams play like I once did, and I don't enjoy what the game has become. It definitely for me isn't about the winning and losing. I remember watching UCLA take us to the wood shed most years in the 60s through 80s, and you could appreciate the skill and athleticism ofJabbar, Wicks, Walton. It was more about how good they looked than us looking bad. I loved watching our best players from Jim McKean to Poudakis, Collins, Quinnett, and a dozen ithers . g
Good teams averaged 80 per game with no shot clock or 3 point line, because you couldn't just grab and shove, or hammer guys in the paint.
For me it started with the Big East. I would occasionally watch those games and they were ugly to me. Pretty soon that style started to proliferate.
Not really blaming anyone in this post, just an inevitable evolution, and yes the pro game had its impact too.
Good teams averaged 80 per game with no shot clock or 3 point line, because you couldn't just grab and shove, or hammer guys in the paint.
For me it started with the Big East. I would occasionally watch those games and they were ugly to me. Pretty soon that style started to proliferate.
Not really blaming anyone in this post, just an inevitable evolution, and yes the pro game had its impact too.
I actually liked the days of the Big East and ACC basketball back in the 80s. From the teams to the coaches and players and venues. I was a pretty big Georgetown fan until the NCAA tournament game in Pullman when they came out and went 4-corners (thank you Dean Smith) for most of the game. By the second half I was all-in for SMU. Their fans were a lot more fun anyway!
Georgetown won 37-36 on their way to the Championship.
Georgetown won 37-36 on their way to the Championship.
Similar threads
