Many people would simply not agree with this statement. Mark Few took over a program that was already very good and in much better shape than the program Ernie took over. In fact, the coach before Few (Monson) actually made it to the Elite 8 the season before he left, a feat Few has not yet duplicated in the 10 years following (maybe this is the year?). Eight of the top ten players on that Elite 8 team returned the following season, so it is not like the cupboard was left bare for Few either. How far has Few elevated the program above where it was already at? Furthermore, Few has had a much newer and much nicer basketball facility to work with at Gonzaga than Ernie has had to deal with at Oregon. That will obviously be changing in the near future. Although Gonzaga isn't able to sell recruits on playing in a major conference, they do enjoy a bit of a recruiting edge for certain recruits due to the religious angle and it is obviously much easier to consistently win in their weaker conference, thus they are able to sell their consistently winning program to recruits. Is there really any reason to believe any decent basketball coach would not continue to win at Gonzaga if they replaced Few, just like Few continued to win when he replaced Monson? Gonzaga is to college basketball what Boise State is to college football. Both are bullies in their weaker conferences. Coaches come, coaches go, they just keep on winning. The coaches that leave don't have much success when they try to step up to a higher level (see Monson and Hawkins).duckgrad99 wrote:I apologize, I didn't mean to sound harsh. But the point is, Gonzaga does more with less.
Like I said before, I am not a Few hater. However, saying he has had less to work with during his tenure at Gonzaga is debatable.
