Anybody else?

[woundedknees]

If Altman strings together 13 consecutive 20 (or better) win seasons at Oregon, fans better be impressed.

[oregontrack]

If Altman strings together 13 consecutive 20 (or better) win seasons at Oregon, fans better be impressed.

And it'd be 9 more 20+ win seasons then Ernie had!

[woundedknees]

If Altman strings together 13 consecutive 20 (or better) win seasons at Oregon, fans better be impressed.

And it'd be 9 more 20+ win seasons then Ernie had!

I wasn't going to say that!

[Boom]

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.

first round losses in the tourney is like winning the Sun Bowl (who cares)

If Altman strings together 13 consecutive 20 (or better) win seasons at Oregon, fans better be impressed.

I would be very impressed

[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.

first round losses in the tourney is like winning the Sun Bowl (who cares)

That's a dangerous mindset to have as a fan of a school who has only made you "care" twice in the last seventy years.

You have to get to the Tournament in order to eventually lose in the Tournament.

[Boom]

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.

first round losses in the tourney is like winning the Sun Bowl (who cares)

That's a dangerous mindset to have as a fan of a school who has only made you "care" twice in the last seventy years.

You have to get to the Tournament in order to eventually lose in the Tournament.

Not making excuses for EK not making the tourney.... that's a separate issue.

But given the choice... I would take 2 elite eights over X amount of first round losses.

[dthomas=ddixon]

I'd rather have the chance for a good run in the tourny every year rather than knowing the season is meaningless by this point most years. The runs were great but there was nothing in between, I'd rather have fun competitive seasons every year. No fan base wants to tune in once every 5-6 years.

[greenyellow]

I'd rather have the chance for a good run in the tourny every year rather than knowing the season is meaningless by this point most years. The runs were great but there was nothing in between, I'd rather have fun competitive seasons every year. No fan base wants to tune in once every 5-6 years.

That's what really made me want a change. Under Kent, you almost always knew when they were due for either a big season or a clunker just by looking at the personnel and could decide early if you were going to pay attention. I would rather be interested every year, even if they won't go far in the NCAA Tournament.

[oregontrack]

I'd rather have the chance for a good run in the tourny every year rather than knowing the season is meaningless by this point most years. The runs were great but there was nothing in between, I'd rather have fun competitive seasons every year. No fan base wants to tune in once every 5-6 years.

Exactly. I think most people think like this. The two Elite Eight runs were great fun, but there was literally no reason to watch entire seasons of Oregon basketball in the 2000s. Give me a coach who can win 20+ most seasons and put out exciting, fun basketball game-in, game-out, every single year over two really fun weeks in a 13 year span.

[buckmarkduck]

I'd take 9 tourneys out of 10 without elite 8 over 2 elite 8 and 2-3 first round exits and a bunch of crappy seasons.

That's like saying I'd take 2 BCS games 2 LV bowl loses and 5 losing seasons.

[Boom]

I'd rather have the chance for a good run in the tourny every year rather than knowing the season is meaningless by this point most years. The runs were great but there was nothing in between, I'd rather have fun competitive seasons every year. No fan base wants to tune in once every 5-6 years.

Well EK took the ducks to 5 tourneys in 13yrs..... So 1 in every 2.5 years.... is pretty standard for Pac10 teams not named UCLA & Arizona.

[buckmarkduck]

I think with 12 teams it will make it easier to get to the tourney than in the 10 team round robin. Kinda like the big east looks so good because they have 16 teams or whatever so they play a handful of crappy teams a year. In the pac-10 your lucky to get 5 teams in because they beat each other up and outside the last 2 years, the pac has been pretty good over the last 20 years.

[Boom]

I think with 12 teams it will make it easier to get to the tourney than in the 10 team round robin. Kinda like the big east looks so good because they have 16 teams or whatever so they play a handful of crappy teams a year. In the pac-10 your lucky to get 5 teams in because they beat each other up and outside the last 2 years, the pac has been pretty good over the last 20 years.

I hope so.

I'm too lazy to look, but I would bet Oregon's overall record and tourney history for the past 10yrs is pretty similar to every other school not named UCLA & AU(basketball schools).

It's going to take more than Altman to change that, but I think the new arena helps.

[oregontrack]

Most of Pac-10 schools have shitty basketball programs. Being "comparable" to them is not exactly a ringing endorsement, champ.

[Boom]

Most of Pac-10 schools have shitty basketball programs. Being "comparable" to them is not exactly a ringing endorsement, champ.

Oh I see.... we should be comparing ourselves to Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, & Uconn..... because the rest are "Shitty"

If the Pac 10 only gets 3-4 seeds a year and 2 of those are likely going to Arizona & UCLA... then your competing against Cal, Standford, UW, & USC..... neither of which are "Shitty"

Basketball is very cyclical.... unless you consistently have top 15 recruiting classes you're going to have down years.