Anybody else?

[greenyellow]

Kent was a good recruiter, but sucked at developing players and making in-game tactical changes. Altman has shown he's a better in-game coach than Kent and his players are improving, instead of faltering. While Altman never had top-rated classes at Creighton, he's shown he can recruit once he has some decent resources. This team also seems to be more mentally tough, due in part to Altman's style, but also due to the players having to go through so much in the off-season.

[wvduck34]

Craig Robinson is a decent coach...much better than Kent.

Whoa Whoa Whoa!!! Did I just hear you. When I said that Kent deserved what he got, I didn't think
anybody would stoop to THAT level.

Why don't you just pull out my tongue with a pair of pliers!!

Kent is a DUCK. He played for us in college and led us too some of our best seasons as a head coach. He infused this team with tradition when that SOB Green just bitched at a lack of facilities. Ernie took us from nowhere to 5 NCAA title
appearances, two Elite Eight finishes, a regular season championship and two Pac-10 tournament titles!!

Craig Robinson coached Brown to an overall record of 30-28 and has yet to have a winning record at OSU: The fact
that he is our president's brother-in-law is the only other noteworthy thing about him.

Read George Schroder's article in the Register Guard before making a final decision about Kent. He deserves to sit next in Phil Knight's box and enjoy the new Arena, he's as responsible for it's existence as any booster. Time will be kinder to Ernie in the long run once old wounds are healed. And I look forward to the day when his jersey will hang in the rafters.

Go Ducks!!

[Boom]

It's still way early and will likely come down to recruiting.

Well Altman's already got a top class coming in. And if he can recruit with even relative consistency he'll be doing a better job than Kent did in that department. Kent had some great classes but he had even more terrible ones. Which IMO was a big cause of his struggles. You pull in Malik, Bryce, Oguchi & Luenen but absolutely nothing in between. So of course once those guys were gone he had exactly what he had recruited, nothing. Then comes a bunch of talented but undeveloped freshman. Which was an absolute worst case scenario for Kent.

No one to blame but himself. And if there's anyone to compare CR to it's Kent. Great recruiter/salesman but can't seem to get his team to buy in. Altman coached circles around him last Saturday.

Craig Robinson is a decent coach...much better than Kent.

And what do you base that off? Kent at least has a couple elite 8's on his resume. Five seasons in as a college coach, and Robinson hasn't shown much improvement nor does he stand any remote chance of even making an ncaa tournament anytime soon.

His team has good ball movement on offense and play solid defense.......I shouldn't have to tell you that what Robinson is currently working with isn't half as good as what Kent had during his elite eight runs.

Dana Altman's resume isn't nearly good as Kent's either, but it's still easy to see that he's a better coach.

But like I said earlier... It comes down to recruiting. Which is were Kent's success came from... not coaching.

Beavers 2009 class was pretty good. Better than most Kent's classes outside of probably the Malik, Bryce, Oguchi, Leunen one. Robinson's recruiting is fine, maybe not as good as Kent's but close enough to be able to have similar success to Kent. The biggest difference is Kent was able to pull in a 5 star stud every 4-5 seasons (Malik, Brooks, Ridnour).

IMO if Robinson was that much better of a coach then Kent, then the Beavers should be one of the better teams in the Pac-10, especially in an extremely down year like this season. But instead, they are one of the bottom teams of the Pac-10. Robinson is not a good coach at all, their offense can get dull in a hurry. While their defense is usually pretty stellar, it has not be as effective this season as it has in the previous two years. Robinson won't be around for long IMO.

And Altman's resume is much more impressive. In just his 3rd year of coaching at Kansas State, he made the NCAA tournament. And in his last 12 seasons in coaching, he's made it to 7 NCAA tournaments. That's more than NCAA tournament's then Ernie Kent has made in his 20 years of coaching. Just saying, Altman is an exceptional coach. Robinson and Kent are in the same boat IMO.

Beevs 2009 class was OK..... unrated by ESPN and rated 23 on rivals..... Cunningham & Nelson (the only 4* players on the team) are nice players, but 2 sophomores aren't going to carry your team in the Pac10. And that class doesn't compare to Oregon's 2008 & 2009 recruiting classes either.

And as far as Altman goes.......7 NCCA appearances isn't that impressive when you only have 2 wins. Kent underachieved and had 6.

IMO, Altman's resume starts over when he took over our program... he's done a nice job so far, but has a long way to go. Just like Craig Robinson and the Beevs... We could easily have 3-4 seasons of 500 basketball.

[Boom]

Craig Robinson is a decent coach...much better than Kent.

Whoa Whoa Whoa!!! Did I just hear you. When I said that Kent deserved what he got, I didn't think
anybody would stoop to THAT level.

Why don't you just pull out my tongue with a pair of pliers!!

Kent is a DUCK. He played for us in college and led us too some of our best seasons as a head coach. He infused this team with tradition when that SOB Green just bitched at a lack of facilities. Ernie took us from nowhere to 5 NCAA title
appearances, two Elite Eight finishes, a regular season championship and two Pac-10 tournament titles!!

Craig Robinson coached Brown to an overall record of 30-28 and has yet to have a winning record at OSU: The fact
that he is our president's brother-in-law is the only other noteworthy thing about him.

Read George Schroder's article in the Register Guard before making a final decision about Kent. He deserves to sit next in Phil Knight's box and enjoy the new Arena, he's as responsible for it's existence as any booster. Time will be kinder to Ernie in the long run once old wounds are healed. And I look forward to the day when his jersey will hang in the rafters.

Go Ducks!!

You understand that there is a difference between coaching and recruiting right? I'm not trying to discredit Kent's accomplishments, but much of his success is credited to the athletes he brought in... not his coaching.

And IMO being a good recruiter is just as valuable as being a good coach. John Calipari isn't a top 20 coach, but with his recruiting classes Kentucky will always be a top10 team.

[UOducksTK1]

Well Altman's already got a top class coming in. And if he can recruit with even relative consistency he'll be doing a better job than Kent did in that department. Kent had some great classes but he had even more terrible ones. Which IMO was a big cause of his struggles. You pull in Malik, Bryce, Oguchi & Luenen but absolutely nothing in between. So of course once those guys were gone he had exactly what he had recruited, nothing. Then comes a bunch of talented but undeveloped freshman. Which was an absolute worst case scenario for Kent.

No one to blame but himself. And if there's anyone to compare CR to it's Kent. Great recruiter/salesman but can't seem to get his team to buy in. Altman coached circles around him last Saturday.

Craig Robinson is a decent coach...much better than Kent.

And what do you base that off? Kent at least has a couple elite 8's on his resume. Five seasons in as a college coach, and Robinson hasn't shown much improvement nor does he stand any remote chance of even making an ncaa tournament anytime soon.

His team has good ball movement on offense and play solid defense.......I shouldn't have to tell you that what Robinson is currently working with isn't half as good as what Kent had during his elite eight runs.

Dana Altman's resume isn't nearly good as Kent's either, but it's still easy to see that he's a better coach.

But like I said earlier... It comes down to recruiting. Which is were Kent's success came from... not coaching.

Beavers 2009 class was pretty good. Better than most Kent's classes outside of probably the Malik, Bryce, Oguchi, Leunen one. Robinson's recruiting is fine, maybe not as good as Kent's but close enough to be able to have similar success to Kent. The biggest difference is Kent was able to pull in a 5 star stud every 4-5 seasons (Malik, Brooks, Ridnour).

IMO if Robinson was that much better of a coach then Kent, then the Beavers should be one of the better teams in the Pac-10, especially in an extremely down year like this season. But instead, they are one of the bottom teams of the Pac-10. Robinson is not a good coach at all, their offense can get dull in a hurry. While their defense is usually pretty stellar, it has not be as effective this season as it has in the previous two years. Robinson won't be around for long IMO.

And Altman's resume is much more impressive. In just his 3rd year of coaching at Kansas State, he made the NCAA tournament. And in his last 12 seasons in coaching, he's made it to 7 NCAA tournaments. That's more than NCAA tournament's then Ernie Kent has made in his 20 years of coaching. Just saying, Altman is an exceptional coach. Robinson and Kent are in the same boat IMO.

Beevs 2009 class was OK..... unrated by ESPN and rated 23 on rivals..... Cunningham & Nelson (the only 4* players on the team) are nice players, but 2 sophomores aren't going to carry your team in the Pac10. And that class doesn't compare to Oregon's 2008 & 2009 recruiting classes either.

And as far as Altman goes.......7 NCCA appearances isn't that impressive when you only have 2 wins. Kent underachieved and had 6.

IMO, Altman's resume starts over when he took over our program... he's done a nice job so far, but has a long way to go. Just like Craig Robinson and the Beevs... We could easily have 3-4 seasons of 500 basketball.

Two 4 stars is better than most Kent's classes... (using rivals.com)

2009: one 4 star
2008: two 4 stars
2007: one 4 star
2006: 0 4 stars
2005: 0 4 stars
2004: Loaded, classes like this is why everyone thinks Kent's recruiting is always great. But the truth is, he only had a few classes like this. The rest of his classes were below average.
2003: one 4 star (Aaron Brooks)
2002: 0 four stars

Take out that 2004 classes and Beavers recruiting = Ducks recruiting. Kent's AMAZING recruiting skills is completely overblown. He's a good recruiter, sure. But hell, even Altman's class this year is pretty much up there with any of Kent's classes (excluding 04).

Altman > Kent > Robinson. Robinson really hasn't proved anything other than he can play some good defense. I don't see how that would warrant him being a better coach than either Kent or Altman. They both have a history to back them up. And while Robinson is still relatively new to coaching, he has no resume right now.

[distantobserver]

.
And as far as Altman goes.......7 NCCA appearances isn't that impressive when you only have 2 wins. Kent underachieved and had 6.

IMO, Altman's resume starts over when he took over our program... he's done a nice job so far, but has a long way to go. Just like Craig Robinson and the Beevs... We could easily have 3-4 seasons of 500 basketball.

Not that I fully disagree that he underachieved in the NCAA Tournament while at Creighton but it is a lot harder to rack up tourney wins when your team is the underdog in virtually all of the games. His Creighton teams should have won more games (and were always so close) but they had a considerable disadvantage compared to the Ernie Kent Oregon teams, in both the quality of players and seeding (in both of the Elite 8 years).

[Boom]

OK, well I don't think that the Beevs 09 class was better than the ducks 08 or 09 class and we saw what Kent was able to do with them (briefly)

The Ducks will likely finish well below 500 and you're already going to crown Altman as Oregon's best coach!?

I agree Robinson hasn't "proven" anything, but neither has Altman.

I think it's reasonable to say both are good coaches and their success will more than likely correlate with their future recruiting success (takes more than one class to build something).

[UOducksTK1]

OK, well I don't think that the Beevs 09 class was better than the ducks 08 or 09 class and we saw what Kent was able to do with them (briefly)

The Ducks will likely finish well below 500 and you're already going to crown Altman as Oregon's best coach!?

I agree Robinson hasn't "proven" anything, but neither has Altman.

I think it's reasonable to say both are good coaches and their success will more than likely correlate with their future recruiting success (takes more than one class to build something).

That's basically where I disagree, Altman was playing in an ncaa tournament in his 3rd season as a head coach. Robinson hasn't even come close to a tourny appearance.

Where did I ever say Altman is Oregon's best coach? Don't be silly, Altman IS a better coach though than Kent and Robinson. He has a track record to prove it, and he's already impressed me in less than season at Oregon. Obviously time will tell in the end.

[Boom]

.
And as far as Altman goes.......7 NCCA appearances isn't that impressive when you only have 2 wins. Kent underachieved and had 6.

IMO, Altman's resume starts over when he took over our program... he's done a nice job so far, but has a long way to go. Just like Craig Robinson and the Beevs... We could easily have 3-4 seasons of 500 basketball.

Not that I fully disagree that he underachieved in the NCAA Tournament while at Creighton but it is a lot harder to rack up tourney wins when your team is the underdog in virtually all of the games. His Creighton teams should have won more games (and were always so close) but they had a considerable disadvantage compared to the Ernie Kent Oregon teams, in both the quality of players and seeding (in both of the Elite 8 years).

Well you can't argue it both ways... It's also a hell of a lot easier to finish in the top 3 in the MVC than the Pac 10....That's why I think his NCAA appearance #s is irrelevant.

And Altman's Creighton teams have almost always been seated 10th...... there not that big of an underdog going against a 7th seed (10th seeds win 40% of the time).

[Boom]

OK, well I don't think that the Beevs 09 class was better than the ducks 08 or 09 class and we saw what Kent was able to do with them (briefly)

The Ducks will likely finish well below 500 and you're already going to crown Altman as Oregon's best coach!?

I agree Robinson hasn't "proven" anything, but neither has Altman.

I think it's reasonable to say both are good coaches and their success will more than likely correlate with their future recruiting success (takes more than one class to build something).

That's basically where I disagree, Altman was playing in an ncaa tournament in his 3rd season as a head coach. Robinson hasn't even come close to a tourny appearance.

It's a little harder making it into the tourney coaching in the PAC10 rather than coaching in the MVC....

Where did I ever say Altman is Oregon's best coach? Don't be silly, Altman IS a better coach though than Kent and Robinson.

Altman & Robinson's coaching style and philosophy are pretty similar. Ernie's was horrible, but he has had more success than both of them combined.(due to the talent he recruited)

He has a track record to prove it, and he's already impressed me in less than season at Oregon. Obviously time will tell in the end.

I agree.... I'm cautiously optimistic

[UOducksTK1]

OK, well I don't think that the Beevs 09 class was better than the ducks 08 or 09 class and we saw what Kent was able to do with them (briefly)

The Ducks will likely finish well below 500 and you're already going to crown Altman as Oregon's best coach!?

I agree Robinson hasn't "proven" anything, but neither has Altman.

I think it's reasonable to say both are good coaches and their success will more than likely correlate with their future recruiting success (takes more than one class to build something).

That's basically where I disagree, Altman was playing in an ncaa tournament in his 3rd season as a head coach. Robinson hasn't even come close to a tourny appearance.

It's a little harder making it into the tourney coaching in the PAC10 rather than coaching in the MVC....

Where did I ever say Altman is Oregon's best coach? Don't be silly, Altman IS a better coach though than Kent and Robinson.

Altman & Robinson's coaching style and philosophy are pretty similar. Ernie's was horrible, but he has had more success than both of them combined.(due to the talent he recruited)

He has a track record to prove it, and he's already impressed me in less than season at Oregon. Obviously time will tell in the end.

I agree.... I'm cautiously optimistic

True, but Kent was at St. Mary's for 7 seasons, and didn't make the NCAA tournament until his last season. I just think you aren't crediting Altman enough for his accomplishments at Creighton.

I still disagee with Robinson, but we don't have to agree on everything! Although I usually am right.

[Boom]

OK, well I don't think that the Beevs 09 class was better than the ducks 08 or 09 class and we saw what Kent was able to do with them (briefly)

The Ducks will likely finish well below 500 and you're already going to crown Altman as Oregon's best coach!?

I agree Robinson hasn't "proven" anything, but neither has Altman.

I think it's reasonable to say both are good coaches and their success will more than likely correlate with their future recruiting success (takes more than one class to build something).

That's basically where I disagree, Altman was playing in an ncaa tournament in his 3rd season as a head coach. Robinson hasn't even come close to a tourny appearance.

It's a little harder making it into the tourney coaching in the PAC10 rather than coaching in the MVC....

Where did I ever say Altman is Oregon's best coach? Don't be silly, Altman IS a better coach though than Kent and Robinson.

Altman & Robinson's coaching style and philosophy are pretty similar. Ernie's was horrible, but he has had more success than both of them combined.(due to the talent he recruited)

He has a track record to prove it, and he's already impressed me in less than season at Oregon. Obviously time will tell in the end.

I agree.... I'm cautiously optimistic

True, but Kent was at St. Mary's for 7 seasons, and didn't make the NCAA tournament until his last season. I just think you aren't crediting Altman enough for his accomplishments at Creighton.

Ernie Kent made his mark at Oregon..... It's going to take some time for Altman to do that (if it happens). I could care less about his "accomplishments" at Creighton.... other than his 2 tourney victories it's not relevant.

I still disagee with Robinson, but we don't have to agree on everything! Although I usually am right.

[distantobserver]

.
And as far as Altman goes.......7 NCCA appearances isn't that impressive when you only have 2 wins. Kent underachieved and had 6.

IMO, Altman's resume starts over when he took over our program... he's done a nice job so far, but has a long way to go. Just like Craig Robinson and the Beevs... We could easily have 3-4 seasons of 500 basketball.

Not that I fully disagree that he underachieved in the NCAA Tournament while at Creighton but it is a lot harder to rack up tourney wins when your team is the underdog in virtually all of the games. His Creighton teams should have won more games (and were always so close) but they had a considerable disadvantage compared to the Ernie Kent Oregon teams, in both the quality of players and seeding (in both of the Elite 8 years).

Well you can't argue it both ways... It's also a hell of a lot easier to finish in the top 3 in the MVC than the Pac 10....That's why I think his NCAA appearance #s is irrelevant.

And Altman's Creighton teams have almost always been seated 10th...... there not that big of an underdog going against a 7th seed (10th seeds win 40% of the time).

I never argued it the other way.

And it is still a detriment to be the lower ranked team. If Altman's Creighton teams were the 10 seed every time (they weren't, but for the sake of your argument) than using your winning percentage of 40% he should have exactly 2.8 tournament wins out Creighton's 7 trips under his tenure, so essentially 3; Altman won 2 games in the tournament. I agree he underachieved, but you can't compare it to Kent having a 2 or 3 seed - 2 seeds are supposed to make the Elite 8. One of his Creighton team's wins was as a 12 seed as well, so that team overachieved. However, the one time that Altman did get a lower seed (6, I believe) they were upset in the first round; that team most definitely underachieved.

None of this gives us a good enough data set to accurately compare Kent's and Altman's tenures at Oregon - only time can tell that. But I think that you also can't compare Kent's NCAA success and Altman's to this point. Again, the experiences at the two schools are just too different.

[Boom]

.
And as far as Altman goes.......7 NCCA appearances isn't that impressive when you only have 2 wins. Kent underachieved and had 6.

IMO, Altman's resume starts over when he took over our program... he's done a nice job so far, but has a long way to go. Just like Craig Robinson and the Beevs... We could easily have 3-4 seasons of 500 basketball.

Not that I fully disagree that he underachieved in the NCAA Tournament while at Creighton but it is a lot harder to rack up tourney wins when your team is the underdog in virtually all of the games. His Creighton teams should have won more games (and were always so close) but they had a considerable disadvantage compared to the Ernie Kent Oregon teams, in both the quality of players and seeding (in both of the Elite 8 years).

Well you can't argue it both ways... It's also a hell of a lot easier to finish in the top 3 in the MVC than the Pac 10....That's why I think his NCAA appearance #s is irrelevant.

And Altman's Creighton teams have almost always been seated 10th...... there not that big of an underdog going against a 7th seed (10th seeds win 40% of the time).

I never argued it the other way.

And it is still a detriment to be the lower ranked team. If Altman's Creighton teams were the 10 seed every time (they weren't, but for the sake of your argument) than using your winning percentage of 40% he should have exactly 2.8 tournament wins out Creighton's 7 trips under his tenure, so essentially 3; Altman won 2 games in the tournament. I agree he underachieved, but you can't compare it to Kent having a 2 or 3 seed - 2 seeds are supposed to make the Elite 8. One of his Creighton team's wins was as a 12 seed as well, so that team overachieved. However, the one time that Altman did get a lower seed (6, I believe) they were upset in the first round; that team most definitely underachieved.

None of this gives us a good enough data set to accurately compare Kent's and Altman's tenures at Oregon - only time can tell that. But I think that you also can't compare Kent's NCAA success and Altman's to this point. Again, the experiences at the two schools are just too different.

I think it's pretty clear that Kent has had more success to this point. Can Altman change that now that he's at Oregon? time will tell.

[oregontrack]

If we go by Tournament wins and only Tournament wins, Ernie had two "good" seasons in 13 years here.

Truth is, mid-majors rarely make extended runs in the NCAA Tournament. Every once in awhile you get a George Mason, or Butler, or Kent State, but those tend to fall on the 'rare' side. I don't know anyone who critiques and judges a mid-major coach on how many NCAA Tournament wins he has, outside of perhaps Mark Few, as Mark Few tends to recruit like a major conference school. The fact that Creighton had such a long streak of sustained success is MUCH more impressive than Ernie winning 6 Tournament games in 13 years. Having a proven system > needing an incredible array of talent an first round PGs to win a single game in March.