Watch this and you will understand
espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=requiemforthebigeast
Comments
-
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. -
Slow day?
-
You didn't watch the show.He_Needs_More_Time said: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. -
So?doogsinparadise said:Slow day?
-
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.MikeDamone said:
You didn't watch the show.He_Needs_More_Time said: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.
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. -
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.He_Needs_More_Time said: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. -
Im talking long term ucla, arizona, unc, kansas type of success, not Butler or Creighton
-
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.doogsinparadise said:
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.He_Needs_More_Time said: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.
-
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).doogsinparadise said:
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.He_Needs_More_Time said: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.
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. -
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.
-
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.AtomicDawg said: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.
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.
-
Arizona was nothing before they hired Lute Olson. UCLA was nothing before they hired John Wooden. UConn was nothing before they hired Calhoun.doogsinparadise said:Im talking long term ucla, arizona, unc, kansas type of success, not Butler or Creighton
Etc.
-
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?dnc said:
Arizona was nothing before they hired Lute Olson. UCLA was nothing before they hired John Wooden. UConn was nothing before they hired Calhoun.doogsinparadise said:Im talking long term ucla, arizona, unc, kansas type of success, not Butler or Creighton
Etc. -
Pressing.
UW can be anything it sets its mind out to be. And no, I didn't watch your stupid video. Ain't nobody got time for dat -
I'm not letting you on the bandwagon when peterman wins multiple rose bowlsdoogsinparadise said:
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.He_Needs_More_Time said: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.
-
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.dnc said:
Arizona was nothing before they hired Lute Olson. UCLA was nothing before they hired John Wooden. UConn was nothing before they hired Calhoun.doogsinparadise said:Im talking long term ucla, arizona, unc, kansas type of success, not Butler or Creighton
Etc. -
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.AtomicDawg said: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.
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.
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. -
Just wait until Terrence Jones gets here and plays with Gaddy!!!1 Final four or BUST!!
-
We can't they be...simple. They do t want to be is the main reason.He_Needs_More_Time said:
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).doogsinparadise said:
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.He_Needs_More_Time said: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.
But if the small schools I mentioned before can make the final four why can't UW? That's my point. -
Someone finally gets it.AtomicDawg said: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.
Ever spend time in Tucson? The local sports page is all about UA basketball. Even during football season, basketball still gets a fair amount of coverage. It's what they are about and what they spend their time, money and attention on. Just as the Big East did. They made a decision.. -
For you Fucktards/doogs that think UW just needs the right coach to be a basketball as well as a football school, you will be waiting a very very long time. I think the clock is getting close to 100 years of being irrelevant on the national level...I'm sure it's about to turn around,,,just.get.the.right.coach.
-
I wasn't around during that time but they did have that much attention towards basketball prior to Olson's arrival? They are into basketball now because Olson built them into a basketball powerhouse which they weren't before.MikeDamone said:
Someone finally gets it.AtomicDawg said: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.
Ever spend time in Tucson? The local sports page is all about UA basketball. Even during football season, basketball still gets a fair amount of coverage. It's what they are about and what they spend their time, money and attention on. Just as the Big East did. They made a decision..
Prior to his arrival it's not like they had hidden advantages like location or tradition either.
If UW were to hire a young Lute Olson or John Calipari or Jim Boeheim do you really believe UW wouldn't be a basketball power either? -
With the right coach this past decade they could have. Having a player like a Brandon Roy until his senior year is very rare. I'm sure there are a number of coaches who could have turned a Brandon Roy squad into a FF team.MikeDamone said:For you Fucktards/doogs that think UW just needs the right coach to be a basketball as well as a football school, you will be waiting a very very long time. I think the clock is getting close to 100 years of being irrelevant on the national level...I'm sure it's about to turn around,,,just.get.the.right.coach.
To have three years of Isaiah Thomas while having Brockman for a year, Pondexter for two, Ross/Wilcox was on the third I'm sure there a number of coaches who could have produced better than only one sweet 16.
To have Ross/Wroten/Wilcox on a team and not make the NCAA's at all same with the Brockman/Hawes/Pondexter team I'm sure a number of better coaches could have produced more from that.
In the past decade UW is actually up there in producing NBA players so they've had the talent just haven't had the coach to get them through. -
Romar is in the Ty Willingham phase of coaching -early retirement! 16 hour days are LONG GONE in Romar ' s world. Fire that worthless fuck and get a young motivated head coach who strives to be a champion. Otherwise .500 basketball will be the norm around Montlake.
-
You enjoy getting high and rambling worthless shit... amiright?puppylove_sugarsteel said:Romar is in the Ty Willingham phase of coaching -early retirement! 16 hour days are LONG GONE in Romar ' s world. Fire that worthless fuck and get a young motivated head coach who strives to be a champion. Otherwise .500 basketball will be the norm around Montlake.
-
We all know the real reason why you want Romar gone. You have proven to like crappy coaches before but all of a sudden you want Romar gone? Hmmmmmmmpuppylove_sugarsteel said:Romar is in the Ty Willingham phase of coaching -early retirement! 16 hour days are LONG GONE in Romar ' s world. Fire that worthless fuck and get a young motivated head coach who strives to be a champion. Otherwise .500 basketball will be the norm around Montlake.
-
Florida, Ohio State, Wisconsin over the past 20 years, Michigan, Texas, UCLA and Oklahoma to a degree. Michigan St latelyMikeDamone said:For you Fucktards/doogs that think UW just needs the right coach to be a basketball as well as a football school, you will be waiting a very very long time. I think the clock is getting close to 100 years of being irrelevant on the national level...I'm sure it's about to turn around,,,just.get.the.right.coach.
Those are all examples of schools that are good in both sports. I don't expect Washington to make a F 4 every year or even every other year, but someone brought up Wisconsin. They are very consistent, and have made a few Final Fours. I don't get why Washington can't be up at that level. It's not like any school north of UCLA has a basketball tradition or some kind of stranglehold on talent. -
Coulda. 100 years and just waiting for the right coach.He_Needs_More_Time said:
With the right coach this past decade they could have. Having a player like a Brandon Roy until his senior year is very rare. I'm sure there are a number of coaches who could have turned a Brandon Roy squad into a FF team.MikeDamone said:For you Fucktards/doogs that think UW just needs the right coach to be a basketball as well as a football school, you will be waiting a very very long time. I think the clock is getting close to 100 years of being irrelevant on the national level...I'm sure it's about to turn around,,,just.get.the.right.coach.
To have three years of Isaiah Thomas while having Brockman for a year, Pondexter for two, Ross/Wilcox was on the third I'm sure there a number of coaches who could have produced better than only one sweet 16.
To have Ross/Wroten/Wilcox on a team and not make the NCAA's at all same with the Brockman/Hawes/Pondexter team I'm sure a number of better coaches could have produced more from that.
In the past decade UW is actually up there in producing NBA players so they've had the talent just haven't had the coach to get them through. -
Make the final four every year? Or every other year? How about ever. Just once. Or maybe the fi al eight. Just once. I told you why Washington hasn't and won't be at that level. Think man. Or maybe with the right coach.....lolFire_Marshall_Bill said:
Florida, Ohio State, Wisconsin over the past 20 years, Michigan, Texas, UCLA and Oklahoma to a degree. Michigan St latelyMikeDamone said:For you Fucktards/doogs that think UW just needs the right coach to be a basketball as well as a football school, you will be waiting a very very long time. I think the clock is getting close to 100 years of being irrelevant on the national level...I'm sure it's about to turn around,,,just.get.the.right.coach.
Those are all examples of schools that are good in both sports. I don't expect Washington to make a F 4 every year or even every other year, but someone brought up Wisconsin. They are very consistent, and have made a few Final Fours. I don't get why Washington can't be up at that level. It's not like any school north of UCLA has a basketball tradition or some kind of stranglehold on talent.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
