Washington @ Oregon (Thursday)

Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1

oregontrack
All Pac-12
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: Washington @ Oregon (Thursday)

Post by oregontrack »

Boom wrote:Not that it really matters... but I'm pretty sure it was only 4 games in '99.
nah, it was five. we beat georgia tech, wyoming, and tcu, and lost to xavier and cal. we got destroyed in new york.
No, it loses it's significance... and technically the CBI gave us 6 extra games. I was simply pointing out that we paid for 5 home games... further devaluing the meaningfulness of a 20 win season.
yes, i understand what you're saying. it wasn't a typical season. my point was just that our talent level was so low, and we were picked to do so poorly by everyone with an opinion, that i couldn't care less how many extra games we got. that's what i meant by we shouldn't have won 21 games even if we played a 500 game season. it was an exaggeration to express respect at the achievement. and like i said, it's not like ernie (who was the original comparison) never had the opportunity to win more games with extended seasons. and, you know, he had thirteen seasons. doing anything in two seasons, as altman will, that a guy who coached thirteen seasons could only do once is at least noteworthy.
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Boom
All Pac-12
Posts: 5815
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Houston Rockets

Re: Washington @ Oregon (Thursday)

Post by Boom »

oregontrack wrote:
Boom wrote:Not that it really matters... but I'm pretty sure it was only 4 games in '99.
nah, it was five. we beat georgia tech, wyoming, and tcu, and lost to xavier and cal. we got destroyed in new york.
No, it loses it's significance... and technically the CBI gave us 6 extra games. I was simply pointing out that we paid for 5 home games... further devaluing the meaningfulness of a 20 win season.
yes, i understand what you're saying. it wasn't a typical season. my point was just that our talent level was so low, and we were picked to do so poorly by everyone with an opinion, that i couldn't care less how many extra games we got. that's what i meant by we shouldn't have won 21 games even if we played a 500 game season. it was an exaggeration to express respect at the achievement. and like i said, it's not like ernie (who was the original comparison) never had the opportunity to win more games with extended seasons. and, you know, he had thirteen seasons. doing anything in two seasons, as altman will, that a guy who coached thirteen seasons could only do once is at least noteworthy.
That's were I disagree... Finishing tied for 7th place last season is not noteworthy.

On the other hand... finishing in the top 3-4 this season would be.

Especially if we can get into the NCAA or NIT tourney.



BTW, Ernie did it 4 times... not just once... and he did it in the regular season. It just so happened that those led to a tourney bid. Which is were the significance of a 20 win season comes into play.
oregontrack
All Pac-12
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: Washington @ Oregon (Thursday)

Post by oregontrack »

the topic of conversation was how many times ernie had consecutive 20 win seasons, since that is what altman is about to accomplish. ernie did that exactly once, in 2002 and again in 2003. i'm well aware we also won 20+ games in 2000 and 2007, that's just not what we were talking about.

you don't think winning 21 games last year was a good accomplishment? with THAT roster? you crazy.
ImageImageImageImageImage
Post Reply