Watch this and you will understand

You can win with the right coach. Butler made back to back NCAA finals. Not like they were ever a power previously.

Can UW be a power? Define power.

If George Mason, Butler, VCU and Witchita State can make a final four then UW certainly is capable.
 
You can win with the right coach. Butler made back to back NCAA finals. Not like they were ever a power previously.

Can UW be a power? Define power.

If George Mason, Butler, VCU and Witchita State can make a final four then UW certainly is capable.
Click to expand...

You didn't watch the show.
 
You can win with the right coach. Butler made back to back NCAA finals. Not like they were ever a power previously.

Can UW be a power? Define power.

If George Mason, Butler, VCU and Witchita State can make a final four then UW certainly is capable.
Click to expand...

You didn't watch the show.
Click to expand...

I watched it when it first premiered. I miss that college basketball where guys like Ewing would play all four years. I don't get where you are going with this.

The Big East had a bunch of schools that were independent but not basketball powerhouses. Then in the 80's they became powerhouses.

The conference was kicking ass then in the 90's when T.V. deals started to dominate college sports therefore football became even more attractive. The Big East fell apart.

I really don't see how the Big East going from a nothing, to the best conference in America to suddenly dissolving all in a 30 year span has anything to do with UW basketball.
 
You can win with the right coach. Butler made back to back NCAA finals. Not like they were ever a power previously.

Can UW be a power? Define power.

If George Mason, Butler, VCU and Witchita State can make a final four then UW certainly is capable.
Click to expand...

This may be unpopular, but it's not in the interests of the corporate side of collegiate sports for schools like Washington to be good; simply not strong enough as a national brand. You can hire a good coach and be in the sweet sixteen for a few years, but to sustain long term success is another animal.
 
You can win with the right coach. Butler made back to back NCAA finals. Not like they were ever a power previously.

Can UW be a power? Define power.

If George Mason, Butler, VCU and Witchita State can make a final four then UW certainly is capable.
Click to expand...

This may be unpopular, but it's not in the interests of the corporate side of collegiate sports for schools like Washington to be good; simply not strong enough as a national brand. You can hire a good coach and be in the sweet sixteen for a few years, but to sustain long term success is another animal.
Click to expand...

I don't get why it would hurt the corporate side at all. It's not like if UW is good it means Duke, UNC, and Kentucky are going to suck. It wasn't in the interest of Arizona to be a power back in the 80's either.

 
You can win with the right coach. Butler made back to back NCAA finals. Not like they were ever a power previously.

Can UW be a power? Define power.

If George Mason, Butler, VCU and Witchita State can make a final four then UW certainly is capable.
Click to expand...

This may be unpopular, but it's not in the interests of the corporate side of collegiate sports for schools like Washington to be good; simply not strong enough as a national brand. You can hire a good coach and be in the sweet sixteen for a few years, but to sustain long term success is another animal.
Click to expand...

It's why I asked Damone to define power. I didn't say UW can be the next Duke or even UCONN/Arizona(Both nothing before Olson/Calhoun).

But if the small schools I mentioned before can make the final four why can't UW? That's my point.
 
I was referring to the more lasting power definition, as that seems to be the standard around here for the football team.
Basketball doesn't have the sort of tradition where people around the country would talk about the team if they started winning. That's what football has, and what the media means when they called it a "sleeping giant" under the previous regime.
 
Last edited:
Consistent winners in big time basketball are dirty. Real dirty. uw boosters only seem to care about football. It's easy to be good at basketball as you really only need a few at one time to dominate. If our fan base cared more we would be good. They don't so we aren't that good. With a better coach we could be a little better but the top recruits 9/10 times are going to zona and ucla or out of conference.

 
Consistent winners in big time basketball are dirty. Real dirty. uw boosters only seem to care about football. It's easy to be good at basketball as you really only need a few at one time to dominate. If our fan base cared more we would be good. They don't so we aren't that good. With a better coach we could be a little better but the top recruits 9/10 times are going to zona and ucla or out of conference.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but it's not impossible to be good without reeling in the top recruits. Wisconsin finally broke through this year to reach the Final 4, but they have been one of the best teams in the Big 10 for awhile. It's early, but Tony Bennett at Virginia looks like he is building a program the same way. We could go that route or we could hire a Billy Donovan type that is an unproven coach who will be a relentless recruiter that's not afraid to bend the rules. Romar is neither a great coach with a good system or a great recruiter. His system only works with great athletes and guards like B-Roy, Nate, and Isaiah.

To expect us to be Duke or Kansas is stupid, but there is no reason we can't be Wisconsin. A perennial tournament team that reaches and Elite 8 or Final 4 every 5 years.

 
Im talking long term ucla, arizona, unc, kansas type of success, not Butler or Creighton
Click to expand...
Arizona was nothing before they hired Lute Olson. UCLA was nothing before they hired John Wooden. UConn was nothing before they hired Calhoun.

Etc.
 
Im talking long term ucla, arizona, unc, kansas type of success, not Butler or Creighton
Click to expand...
Arizona was nothing before they hired Lute Olson. UCLA was nothing before they hired John Wooden. UConn was nothing before they hired Calhoun.

Etc.
Click to expand...

So? Washington was nothing before they hired Dobie, it's been a few years. I agree with Atomic, there just isn't a commitment to the basketball program from the Athletic Department and boosters like there is with the football program. Until that happens, does it really matter who the coach is?
 
You can win with the right coach. Butler made back to back NCAA finals. Not like they were ever a power previously.

Can UW be a power? Define power.

If George Mason, Butler, VCU and Witchita State can make a final four then UW certainly is capable.
Click to expand...

This may be unpopular, but it's not in the interests of the corporate side of collegiate sports for schools like Washington to be good; simply not strong enough as a national brand. You can hire a good coach and be in the sweet sixteen for a few years, but to sustain long term success is another animal.
Click to expand...

I'm not letting you on the bandwagon when peterman wins multiple rose bowls
 
Im talking long term ucla, arizona, unc, kansas type of success, not Butler or Creighton
Click to expand...
Arizona was nothing before they hired Lute Olson. UCLA was nothing before they hired John Wooden. UConn was nothing before they hired Calhoun.

Etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Lather, rinse, repeat. Same as it ever was. Coaching is everything. The rest is a bunch of pollyanna excuse making. Weird to see Damone on that ship but I guess no one is immune from time to time.
 
Consistent winners in big time basketball are dirty. Real dirty. uw boosters only seem to care about football. It's easy to be good at basketball as you really only need a few at one time to dominate. If our fan base cared more we would be good. They don't so we aren't that good. With a better coach we could be a little better but the top recruits 9/10 times are going to zona and ucla or out of conference.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but it's not impossible to be good without reeling in the top recruits. Wisconsin finally broke through this year to reach the Final 4, but they have been one of the best teams in the Big 10 for awhile. It's early, but Tony Bennett at Virginia looks like he is building a program the same way. We could go that route or we could hire a Billy Donovan type that is an unproven coach who will be a relentless recruiter that's not afraid to bend the rules. Romar is neither a great coach with a good system or a great recruiter. His system only works with great athletes and guards like B-Roy, Nate, and Isaiah.

To expect us to be Duke or Kansas is stupid, but there is no reason we can't be Wisconsin. A perennial tournament team that reaches and Elite 8 or Final 4 every 5 years.
Click to expand...

Good point. I can't argue with that. Wisconsin's style of play makes me want to gouge my eyes out most of the time though they were watchable this year.

Have to hit a home run with a coach like that and then hope they don't use you as a stepping stone. We are never going to pay a coach like the elite teams for basketball. I feel like the chances of that happening are pretty slim but if that is the route you want to go you have to be willing to fire the wrong guy often until you find mr right.

I actually think romar is a decent recruiter but these kids aren't dip shits and can see our shitty half court offense as easy as anyone else and it seems we don't really pay our players or their aau coaches. Nor do we even have a basketball only practice facility which isn't everything but rather just shows how much we don't give a shit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top