For those of you who were disappointed in Kent s preseason hype, he did not disappoint at Media Days. He called Ali a "jet" and called Kunc a "phenomenal" basketball player. He states seven players are shooting over 40% from 3 pt land in practice. The superlatives do not end there.and Kent states how much better this team is on defense.If one can believe than the team should do well this year. Hmm did anyone take me up on my $100 bet that the cougs will play .500 ball this season? The coaches picked the cougs to finish in dead last place this season.
PAC 12 media days.
- Thread starter ElComanche
- Start date
If there was a 13th place, CEK would finish there too. WSU plays defense, who knew. PF Wade was recruited at 6-8, I've seen him listed at 6-7, and now EK says he is 6-6 in the interview. Yikes. Your best rebounder is 6-6? WSU will be lucky to repeat at 4-14 in conference.
I'd just like to point out Kent has only finished 12th once in conference and is unlikely to do so again this year.
The leading rebounders in the nation last year were around 6'6. Dennis Rodman was 6'7 and Charles Barkley was around 6'4. If his added conditioning,weight and strength will make him a solid rebounder at the D 1 level then he is just what the team needs.
We have to get back to making teams actually work to score. I think Kent might have seen the defensive light but no idea whether it will make much of a difference. The 1-3-1 zone wasn't the answer. Ivory Clark was about the same size as Wade. I don't know if Wade has the talent but he's supposed to play hard. Time will tell whether it translates to the Pac 12.
Even if we are better than last year, which I kind of doubt, look at what the rest of the league brought in. As much praise as Kent pours on his recruits (as he does every year) they are at the bottom of the scale as far as the PAC 12 recruits. Guys we are excited about would be other schools also rans.
Perhaps you are right. However as i have pointed jucos are usually unrated so the recruits will be ranked near the bottom of the scale.There were about 3-4 conference games the cougs could have won last year If they had prevailed their record would have looked much better. The tournament game against Oregon could have gone either way. yet people continue to extol the recruiting prowess of the Oregon team?. I have looked at the skill set of many other so called super recruits from other teams and i am not super impressed with most of them. How about a bet of $100 that the cougs play over .500 ball this year? I also loved it when the cougs beat SDSU last year and that other poster who lavishes praise on SDSU had to eat his words.
Yes 6-8 conference wins would be a nice surprise and improvement as the PAC should be an improved league this year.
Normally, I would listen to every word uttered by our head BB coach, going back to the Harshman years, trying to glean tidbits that would reveal something germane about the team. This included the Greenwood, Graham, whoever years. Perhaps age has something to do with it, but this guy's utterances don't entice me to pay much mind. I am sure it is related to the complete lack of viability he has shown throughout the course of his tenure.
You mean like the utterance below? "Marching towards a championship"? Sure thing, Coach......more like the Bataan Death March.
“This team is ready to be in postseason play,” Kent said when asked if WSU could finish above .500. “We’re marching toward a championship. We don’t look at .500 or just barely being above .500.
I could be enticed to take the bet if it wasn’t for such an easy pre season and I could never bet against the Cougs. The biggest question for me with jc recruits is why they are coming from a jc? Imo there are several types of jc players to look for in recruiting
The over looked diamond in the ruff (very rare now days)
The D-1 recruit who transferred from a solid D-1 school for what ever reason to a Jc ( ala Ryan Murphy who I’m excited about)
The D-1 level recruit who went the jc route to to fix some academic short comings (like the guy we lost last year)
Finally the late growth spurt kid who gets out of highschool as a 6-5 post then grows 3 or 4 inches to 6-8 or 6-9.
All those have their merits but all of those also can come with drawbacks
The over looked diamond in the ruff (very rare now days)
The D-1 recruit who transferred from a solid D-1 school for what ever reason to a Jc ( ala Ryan Murphy who I’m excited about)
The D-1 level recruit who went the jc route to to fix some academic short comings (like the guy we lost last year)
Finally the late growth spurt kid who gets out of highschool as a 6-5 post then grows 3 or 4 inches to 6-8 or 6-9.
All those have their merits but all of those also can come with drawbacks
I thought Kent was going to tone things down but the recent articles and media day show he's back to making big claims we likely won't back up in the near future. He also said Kunc was 6'9" and Elleby 6'8" which is a bit of a fudge and really not necessary for 2 players who look to have a lot of upside.
I still think we have the potential to be better this year if we can stay healthy and there is more focus on defense and minimizing turnovers. Only about 3 weeks away from finding out.
I still think we have the potential to be better this year if we can stay healthy and there is more focus on defense and minimizing turnovers. Only about 3 weeks away from finding out.
I did not hear from anyone who saw the Mania and how the players looked at first glance.Of course i am talking into account the early season in putting forth an offer to bet. One would think that someone talking about a Bataan Death March would jump at a chance to bet against the cougs??I see a chance at an NIT bid this year if the cougs can win 6-8 games in conference play. It will be an interesting year. Some one should B slap the guy from the other board,Jeff Nusser. What a twerp he actually thinks he knows something about sports and touts his achievements. He is a little nerd who is delusional about his knowledge of sports.I cannot post there as i have been banned like many others on this board.
Last edited:
What wasn't accurate in the article? Do you agree with Kent that if Flynn returned we would have been "upper echelon" in the Pac 12?
I think that Flynn has an unreal inflated opinion of his ability. If the cougs succeed it may be attributed to his leaving.
Much smarter approach. "Head Coach Kamie Ethridge on playing in a competitive conference: "I know were facing some of the best teams in the country. We have a lot of good pieces and we’re going to put a competitive team on the floor and fight through adversity."
That may be usually true but basketball needs to catch on with the student body for it to succeed.Also confidence among the newcomers needs to be nurtured and developed during the early part of the year.The coaches and players need to believe in each other. So maybe a generous dose of praise may do some good at this point.
Different strokes for different folks. Ernie is prone to hyperbole, it's his style. He's a salesman. I have zero issues with Ernie selling a dream. I'll never understand deducting points from a guy for being overly optimistic, especially when comparing this attitude to the wet blanket personalities of Bone and Wulff. Ernie has me curious about what the Cougs can do this year, even if I have no delusions about this squad finishing in the top half of the conference.
I reckon 90% of the anger directed at Kent is because of his persona. Brand Y had a rambling article complaining about how Kent isn't crapping on his team enough. How dare a coach have the audacity to spin the challenges inherit to playing in Pullman as a positive?
My question to the Kent haters is what hope do we have of reasonably doing better than Kent? We still need new facilities, we still need chartered flights, we and we'll need to pay a new coach at least as much as Ernie is making now. And without those upgrades, even if we were to get lucky and have a coach come in defy the odds and build a winner he'd be on the first train out of town ala Tony Bennett. But I never get a response to these concerns, all I get is "yeah, but don't you hate Kent?"
By my assessment of things, Kent's teams play hard but haven't won many games. They need to get more talented but they are no where as painful to watch as early Bennett ball. If we improve, and I'm rooting for him to succeed, Kent is worth his generous salary. If we struggle, Kent is a dead man walking and we have 2-3 more years of zombie basketball.
The scenario where we win should be preferable to all Coug fans. For whatever reason, folks are rooting for him to fail because they don't like how the coach talks about his team.
Without a doubt. A finish of 10th, 12th, 10th and 11th isn't a good outcome.
But Bone's prior three years to Ernie's arrival saw conference records of 6-10, 4-14, and 3-13. Ken Bone wasn't able to recruit. Kent has had similar success. Both coaches were able to win prior to coming to Pullman.
I suppose I think a coaching change would be expensive and unlikely to produce better results.
The biggest myth about Kent is that he won prior to WSU! Look at his record, he was below 500 in conference play at every school. In the PAC 10/12 he has had a above 500 record 4 times in 17 years. Even his elite 8 teams were seen to have under achieved based on their rankings going into the season. It is a complete myth that Ernie Kent has achieved some elite status among coaches if anything he has been mediocre in his career
Optimism is fine. Realism is a lot better. There can't be such a large disconnect between reality and the coach's perception. The Bennett's were definitely grounded in reality and told you exactly where the team was and where it was going. The same could be said for Harshman, Raveling and the guy whose name escapes me but left for greener pastures in the early nineties with Nate Erdman in tow.
Sampson who has brought Houston all the way back. A few JC's early to fill in the gaps and now just good, hard playing defensive and offensive players.
Fair and reasonable post. Here's my response:
1) New facilities, chartered flights, etc....are we more likely to get that kind of investment in the WSU basketball program with or without Ernie as head coach? From my point of view, fundraising for the program is not going anywhere while Kent is there. A new coach and a fresh start may offer some hope and excitement around the program, enough to attract some donations.
2) Early Bennett Ball may have been painful at the time, but a lot of us could see that Dick was building a solid program. Obviously, very few, if anyone, could envision back-to-back 26 win seasons with Bennett Ball....but you would be blind not to see that a dramatic improvement was taking place with the recruits Dick & Tony brought in. I see nothing comparable in the Kent era after 4 seasons....1 more than what Dick had.
3) I have zero problem with a new coach coming in and leaving after a few years, ala Tony. That happens when that coach is successful. I like winning. If the formula for successful Cougar basketball is making Pullman a stepping stone, so be it.
4) I don't condone rooting against Kent and WSU...I actually don't think very many Cougar fans want failure...but at least those fans care enough about the program to want a change for the better. Unfortunately, way too many would-be fans no longer care what happens with Cougar basketball. Ambivalence and apathy are way more dangerous to a program than fans who are critical and are not content with its direction.
5) At what point do you say enough is enough? EK has the second lowest winning percentage of WSU basketball coaches who remained for at least 3 years. Only the infamous Paul Graham was worse. The generous contract offered by Buddy Bill Moos is the only reason EK is getting a 5th year, it certainly can't be because his tenure has demonstrated any success. I just refuse to think we can't do better. If you believe that, WSU basketball is basically doomed forever.
6) And finally, miracles can happen. If Ernie pulls off an improbable year that comes close to matching his self-hype, then people like me will admit we were wrong. I'll be happy to come here and say it. But we haven't been wrong yet after continuous years of EK's pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.
Glad Cougar
An elite coach? No, but Kent is better than he's getting credit for. Good enough for me to think we won't upgrade our coach by making a change.
Thanks, Glad! I appreciate a respectful discussion.
1) Fair point about fundraising. My personal feeling is unless basketball gets a sugar daddy willing to make a large cash donation to the program for upgrades, keep Kent. Even if the cash is just pledged. It's important the donors are behind the next coach before we go and get a next coach, because the same line of reasoning was used replace Bone.
2) Bennett ball was only bearable because the program was obviously headed in the right direction. Still, there was zero excitement until the team started winning. If Kent ever gets his team winning (big if), it'll be a fun team to watch too.
3) I have no issue with a coach leaving after being successful here as well. I just don't think it's a formula for success. You risk the next hire not winning due to the systemic challenges we all know and they likely leave before they rally donors to make the necessary changes to the program. This, to me, lowers the potential upside to make a change.
4) Apathy is bad. So are unrealistic expectations, which are leading folks like Nusser to trash the program without a better alternative.
5) I say enough is enough when the program can make a change which improves the long term chances of the team. I'd say Kent is a better coach than Eastman and Bone, but he didn't inherit a team with really good pieces from his predecessor like he did. If the team flops this year, you probably need to pull the plug. If he wins half his games, I keep him around.
6) Lets hope he succeeds. With his contract, we are stuck with him unless he does.
I agree and my rose colored glasses see a good year for the team, The team last year under achieved but did put forth some good games early and at the end of the season.i think that the team will be way better than last year.Berstein was a big disappointment and should have concentrated on rebounding and defense and not tried to be a point forward. Flynn is not really a leader and was bad defensively.Thus no real team leader emerged last year. Those two guys are the only real losses from last year. The new guys have better skill sets and will help offensively. They may be able to play a man to man defense this year and do well. Last years PG was poor defensively and when his man blew by him it opened the entire floor for the other team. I just did not see the camaraderie and team work needed last year on a consistent basis.The new guys and veterans seem to have bonded and appear to like each other. Last year blame it on coaching or personalities but this years team should support and play harder together as a unit.We shall soon see.
Had to count Ws on the official site but by my count we were 8-10 in conference play Dick's first year with a win in Pauly and a home loss in front of about 11,000 fans to Stanford where a "quick" 5 second call gave Stanford the ball and a circus 3-pointer beat us. Getting 8 conference wins and competitive in a lot more was definitely "bearable" coming off the Graham years. Nothing ugly about winning and that's what we had under the Bennett's.
The last 2 coaches to win in Pullman were Tony (hat tip to Dick) Bennett and Kelvin Sampson. We weren't always pretty on the offensive end but we were tough defensively and minimized mistakes. I don't believe in coincidence.
Similar threads
