Sim gets beat up in practice

[pudgejeff]

Why is it so laughable to expect to be in tournament contention every year? Surely it's not because the other teams in conference are so successful, as Jeff seams to think we are as good as the Pac 10 has come tourney time

I do expect to have a team vying for a tourney berth every year, and I don't think it's that funny. Why not? UO is in a state with strong prep basketball, we have unreal academic support and facilities, we have Nike, and we have a new arena coming that will be the nicest in the country.

Again, these people that laugh at the idea of becoming a perennial bball contender are spouting the same garbage people said about football in the 90s. "We'll never be an annual competitor with the big boys.........." (Legit National Title contention in '01, '07, arguably this past season and supposedly next year).

It comes down to simple questions. Should we be satisfied with continually underwhelming (see .500 career record) basketball, or should we strive to be better than a team that 2 every 12 years gets into the tourney and makes a legit run? I say we shoot for better. To those who say "How do we know anyone else would be better?" I say, how do you know they won't?

I'd say the BBall program is right about where the football program was in the 90's thanks for proving my point...But your expecting the Bball team to have the results the football team is right now not the 90's...I do expect us to get better...but it takes time...And this program for sure has gone up

[pudgejeff]

Oh and Washington, UCLA, Arizona, Stanford, and even Washington State have had better last 10 years, arguably, than Oregon. That's half the conference.

Why should we measure success purely on how a team does when they get to the tournament if we can't even get to the tourney 60% of the time?

Please tell me exactly how those teams have even arguably had better success NCAA tourney wise?...And I didn't say people were wanting a team vying for NCAA tourney berth each year I said an NCAA tourney run

[pudgejeff]

Oh and Washington, UCLA, Arizona, Stanford, and even Washington State have had better last 10 years, arguably, than Oregon. That's half the conference.

Why should we measure success purely on how a team does when they get to the tournament if we can't even get to the tourney 60% of the time?

Please tell me exactly how those teams have even arguably had better success NCAA tourney wise?...And I didn't say people were wanting a team vying for NCAA tourney berth each year I said an NCAA tourney run

Stanford, UCLA, and Arizona yes...Washington..EH?...they have one more tourney Appearance but no Elite 8's...I'll take 4 tourney's and 2 elite 8's over 5 tourney's and 2 sweet 16's...And Washington State?...were you trying to be funny?...They made 2 tourney's and just 1 sweet 16...I'll take the 4th best team in the toughest conference in the country over the last 10 years...Especially behind the likes of UCLA and Arizona, and we were nipping at the heels of Stanford

[duckgrad99]

That's where I think your going overboard Jeff. Elite 8's don't mean that it's alright to have several mediocre seasons after that. Also, the Elite 8's were because we had point guards Luke Ridnour and Aaron Brooks, 2 players doing well in the NBA. I will take tourny births every season along with competing and actually looking like a complete basketball team over an elite 8 appearance every 6 seasons.

[pudgejeff]

That's where I think your going overboard Jeff. Elite 8's don't mean that it's alright to have several mediocre seasons after that. Also, the Elite 8's were because we had point guards Luke Ridnour and Aaron Brooks, 2 players doing well in the NBA. I will take tourny births every season along with competing and actually looking like a complete basketball team over an elite 8 appearance every 6 seasons.

Are you serious?...you'd rather be one and done every year?...How pointless would that be?...That's the definition of mediocre...Ya getting to the tournament every year would be great and all but there's not even very many teams in the country that even do that...That's why Arizona's run is so impressive...Our 4 in the last ten years is 5th in the conference with Washington at 5 just above us...sure I'd rather it was 6 out of 10 instead of 4 but if it's to build a team around a core that can make an elite 8 run with a chance at a national title run I will absolutely take it...Lets use your thought process here...So that would translate to going to the sun bowl and Vegas bowl every year instead of going to the Rose every 6

[oregontrack]

You can't translate football to basketball. The comparisons make no sense.

Also, simply making the Tournament isn't necessarily equal to a great season. Oregon made the Tournament 5 times from 2000-09, but only three of those years were worthwhile. After the first Elite Eight run, we had Ridnour/Jackson/Johnson/Davis all back, Rid went on to win Pac-10 POTY, and we had to win the Pac-10 Tournament just to get an invite to the Big Dance. Did we get to the Tournament? Yes. Was it a successful season? No. We underachieved, horribly. We finished only 4 games over .500 the year after the second Elite Eight, despite bringing back 4 starters. Did we get to the Tournament? Yes. Was it a successful season? No, especially considering that abortion of a game vs. Mississippi State.

[Elduderino]

Washington State and Washington, you're probably right. I got carried away, from a tourney perspective. WSU still in 2007 and 2008 had tournament teams that topped out in the sweet 16 with a loss to North Carolina & over the last 4 seasons (to date) have gone 78-33. Washington since 2002 has been to the Sweet 16 twice and has had 4 tourney berths; in the last 4 years the Huskies have gone somewhere around 75-50. Oregon? We actually have pretty similar to, but better, tourney resume than Washington. Since 2002 we've had the 2 elite 8 teams and been to the tourney 4 times (01-02, 02-03, 06-07,07-08); in the last 4 years though we've managed a 61-53 overall record (again counting to date this year). Ernie's career record at UO? 219-157, which actually sounds pretty good until you see that his record in conference is 102-114.


Again though, why are we basing the evaluation of the team based upon their tourney runs? Why aren't we looking at the big picture of overall team success? It's a cherry picked argument, yes we've had 2 great Elite 8 runs, but in between them we've been nothing more than mediocre (minus one strong NIT push in Luke J.'s senior year). Fact is that Ernie is somewhere around .500 as head coach in the Pac 10. Is that acceptable at the UO? Are you seeing any signs that things are turning around? Or are we hearing the same tired excuses year after year? We're too young, we don't have a point guard, blah, blah, blah.............every single year we hear these.

I don't expect us to make elite 8 runs every year, but to be competitive in conference and to be in tourney contention every year. I absolutely do not think we should tolerate being among the worst 2 teams in the conference (especially when its this bad) for extended periods of time.

I have nothing personal against Ernie, I've met him in passing a few times and I actually thought he's a really nice guy. It's a question of where are we going with this team? Is this the leadership we want? Are we progressing or regressing as a program, as of now I think the answer is clear.

[bellsduck]

Why is it so laughable to expect to be in tournament contention every year? Surely it's not because the other teams in conference are so successful, as Jeff seams to think we are as good as the Pac 10 has come tourney time

I do expect to have a team vying for a tourney berth every year, and I don't think it's that funny. Why not? UO is in a state with strong prep basketball, we have unreal academic support and facilities, we have Nike, and we have a new arena coming that will be the nicest in the country.

Again, these people that laugh at the idea of becoming a perennial bball contender are spouting the same garbage people said about football in the 90s. "We'll never be an annual competitor with the big boys.........." (Legit National Title contention in '01, '07, arguably this past season and supposedly next year).

It comes down to simple questions. Should we be satisfied with continually underwhelming (see .500 career record) basketball, or should we strive to be better than a team that 2 every 12 years gets into the tourney and makes a legit run? I say we shoot for better. To those who say "How do we know anyone else would be better?" I say, how do you know they won't?

I'd say the BBall program is right about where the football program was in the 90's thanks for proving my point...But your expecting the Bball team to have the results the football team is right now not the 90's...I do expect us to get better...but it takes time...And this program for sure has gone up

I'd say player for player the team is better than in the 90's, but is the program really better? We were 10th last year and 9th right now.

[pudgejeff]

Washington State and Washington, you're probably right. I got carried away, from a tourney perspective. WSU still in 2007 and 2008 had tournament teams that topped out in the sweet 16 with a loss to North Carolina & over the last 4 seasons (to date) have gone 78-33. Washington since 2002 has been to the Sweet 16 twice and has had 4 tourney berths; in the last 4 years the Huskies have gone somewhere around 75-50. Oregon? We actually have pretty similar to, but better, tourney resume than Washington. Since 2002 we've had the 2 elite 8 teams and been to the tourney 4 times (01-02, 02-03, 06-07,07-08); in the last 4 years though we've managed a 61-53 overall record (again counting to date this year). Ernie's career record at UO? 219-157, which actually sounds pretty good until you see that his record in conference is 102-114.


Again though, why are we basing the evaluation of the team based upon their tourney runs? Why aren't we looking at the big picture of overall team success? It's a cherry picked argument, yes we've had 2 great Elite 8 runs, but in between them we've been nothing more than mediocre (minus one strong NIT push in Luke J.'s senior year). Fact is that Ernie is somewhere around .500 as head coach in the Pac 10. Is that acceptable at the UO? Are you seeing any signs that things are turning around? Or are we hearing the same tired excuses year after year? We're too young, we don't have a point guard, blah, blah, blah.............every single year we hear these.

I don't expect us to make elite 8 runs every year, but to be competitive in conference and to be in tourney contention every year. I absolutely do not think we should tolerate being among the worst 2 teams in the conference (especially when its this bad) for extended periods of time.

I have nothing personal against Ernie, I've met him in passing a few times and I actually thought he's a really nice guy. It's a question of where are we going with this team? Is this the leadership we want? Are we progressing or regressing as a program, as of now I think the answer is clear.

Ummm I'm sorry but the NCAA tournament is what college basketball is based on...so yes that is what the argument should be based on

[Elduderino]

Washington State and Washington, you're probably right. I got carried away, from a tourney perspective. WSU still in 2007 and 2008 had tournament teams that topped out in the sweet 16 with a loss to North Carolina & over the last 4 seasons (to date) have gone 78-33. Washington since 2002 has been to the Sweet 16 twice and has had 4 tourney berths; in the last 4 years the Huskies have gone somewhere around 75-50. Oregon? We actually have pretty similar to, but better, tourney resume than Washington. Since 2002 we've had the 2 elite 8 teams and been to the tourney 4 times (01-02, 02-03, 06-07,07-08); in the last 4 years though we've managed a 61-53 overall record (again counting to date this year). Ernie's career record at UO? 219-157, which actually sounds pretty good until you see that his record in conference is 102-114.


Again though, why are we basing the evaluation of the team based upon their tourney runs? Why aren't we looking at the big picture of overall team success? It's a cherry picked argument, yes we've had 2 great Elite 8 runs, but in between them we've been nothing more than mediocre (minus one strong NIT push in Luke J.'s senior year). Fact is that Ernie is somewhere around .500 as head coach in the Pac 10. Is that acceptable at the UO? Are you seeing any signs that things are turning around? Or are we hearing the same tired excuses year after year? We're too young, we don't have a point guard, blah, blah, blah.............every single year we hear these.

I don't expect us to make elite 8 runs every year, but to be competitive in conference and to be in tourney contention every year. I absolutely do not think we should tolerate being among the worst 2 teams in the conference (especially when its this bad) for extended periods of time.

I have nothing personal against Ernie, I've met him in passing a few times and I actually thought he's a really nice guy. It's a question of where are we going with this team? Is this the leadership we want? Are we progressing or regressing as a program, as of now I think the answer is clear.

Ummm I'm sorry but the NCAA tournament is what college basketball is based on...so yes that is what the argument should be based on

I disagree, I don't believe that NCAA tournament performance should be the only qualifier in determining the success of a coach or a program. In my opinion, consistency, performance in conference, overall performance, recruiting, and tournament performance should all be considered. Even so, while Ernie has had 2 great elite 8 runs at UO, he's also had 2 first round exits; one of them being one of the ugliest tourney games I've seen (and it involved 4 returning starters from an elite 8 team). Point being that it isn't like Ernie's a guaranteed elite 8 pick every time he hits the tourney.

Look, nobody wants to discredit what Ernie has done for the program, but have the last 3 years shown you any progress? It's about going forward, not being willing to sit pat and enjoy mediocrity. Unfortunately it's a slippery slope when you get to this point. Coaching is a "what have you done for me lately" kind of business. Fans are fickle, they lose interest, revenue drops, team loses motivation, exposure drops, recruiting dips............next thing you know you're in a really deep hole and it's hard as hell to get out. With a really nice, new, expensive arena on the way I'm not sure we want to risk letting ourselves fall that far.

[pudgejeff]

Washington State and Washington, you're probably right. I got carried away, from a tourney perspective. WSU still in 2007 and 2008 had tournament teams that topped out in the sweet 16 with a loss to North Carolina & over the last 4 seasons (to date) have gone 78-33. Washington since 2002 has been to the Sweet 16 twice and has had 4 tourney berths; in the last 4 years the Huskies have gone somewhere around 75-50. Oregon? We actually have pretty similar to, but better, tourney resume than Washington. Since 2002 we've had the 2 elite 8 teams and been to the tourney 4 times (01-02, 02-03, 06-07,07-08); in the last 4 years though we've managed a 61-53 overall record (again counting to date this year). Ernie's career record at UO? 219-157, which actually sounds pretty good until you see that his record in conference is 102-114.


Again though, why are we basing the evaluation of the team based upon their tourney runs? Why aren't we looking at the big picture of overall team success? It's a cherry picked argument, yes we've had 2 great Elite 8 runs, but in between them we've been nothing more than mediocre (minus one strong NIT push in Luke J.'s senior year). Fact is that Ernie is somewhere around .500 as head coach in the Pac 10. Is that acceptable at the UO? Are you seeing any signs that things are turning around? Or are we hearing the same tired excuses year after year? We're too young, we don't have a point guard, blah, blah, blah.............every single year we hear these.

I don't expect us to make elite 8 runs every year, but to be competitive in conference and to be in tourney contention every year. I absolutely do not think we should tolerate being among the worst 2 teams in the conference (especially when its this bad) for extended periods of time.

I have nothing personal against Ernie, I've met him in passing a few times and I actually thought he's a really nice guy. It's a question of where are we going with this team? Is this the leadership we want? Are we progressing or regressing as a program, as of now I think the answer is clear.

Ummm I'm sorry but the NCAA tournament is what college basketball is based on...so yes that is what the argument should be based on

I disagree, I don't believe that NCAA tournament performance should be the only qualifier in determining the success of a coach or a program. In my opinion, consistency, performance in conference, overall performance, recruiting, and tournament performance should all be considered. Even so, while Ernie has had 2 great elite 8 runs at UO, he's also had 2 first round exits; one of them being one of the ugliest tourney games I've seen (and it involved 4 returning starters from an elite 8 team). Point being that it isn't like Ernie's a guaranteed elite 8 pick every time he hits the tourney.

Look, nobody wants to discredit what Ernie has done for the program, but have the last 3 years shown you any progress? It's about going forward, not being willing to sit pat and enjoy mediocrity. Unfortunately it's a slippery slope when you get to this point. Coaching is a "what have you done for me lately" kind of business. Fans are fickle, they lose interest, revenue drops, team loses motivation, exposure drops, recruiting dips............next thing you know you're in a really deep hole and it's hard as hell to get out. With a really nice, new, expensive arena on the way I'm not sure we want to risk letting ourselves fall that far.

It's college basketball not college football...there's more turnover...Florida won back to back to titles and then...hasn't been back to the tourney...not just struggled in it but not even gotten back...North Carolina won it last year...all indication's are that they aren't gonna make it this year...We are most definitely nowhere near the level of those programs...Geez think before you type and actually take the whole basketball landscape in to mind before spouting your rhetoric...Yes they are making progress...Progress towards this team being good when they're Junior and Senior laden

[duckgrad99]

It's college basketball not college football...there's more turnover...Florida won back to back to titles and then...hasn't been back to the tourney...not just struggled in it but not even gotten back...North Carolina won it last year...all indication's are that they aren't gonna make it this year...We are most definitely nowhere near the level of those programs...Geez think before you type and actually take the whole basketball landscape in to mind before spouting your rhetoric...Yes they are making progress...Progress towards this team being good when they're Junior and Senior laden[/quote]


Progress? This team has had one good season since the 2002-2003 season. It shouldn't take 6 years for a team to be good. Plenty of teams win with freshman and sophomores, so that excuse is old.

[pudgejeff]

It's college basketball not college football...there's more turnover...Florida won back to back to titles and then...hasn't been back to the tourney...not just struggled in it but not even gotten back...North Carolina won it last year...all indication's are that they aren't gonna make it this year...We are most definitely nowhere near the level of those programs...Geez think before you type and actually take the whole basketball landscape in to mind before spouting your rhetoric...Yes they are making progress...Progress towards this team being good when they're Junior and Senior laden

Progress? This team has had one good season since the 2002-2003 season. It shouldn't take 6 years for a team to be good. Plenty of teams win with freshman and sophomores, so that excuse is old.[/quote]

2 good seasons...only one great season...and no plenty of teams do not...very few teams do...Lots and lots and lots of teams struggle with them...you only choose to notice the one's that suceed

[duckgrad99]

It's college basketball not college football...there's more turnover...Florida won back to back to titles and then...hasn't been back to the tourney...not just struggled in it but not even gotten back...North Carolina won it last year...all indication's are that they aren't gonna make it this year...We are most definitely nowhere near the level of those programs...Geez think before you type and actually take the whole basketball landscape in to mind before spouting your rhetoric...Yes they are making progress...Progress towards this team being good when they're Junior and Senior laden

Progress? This team has had one good season since the 2002-2003 season. It shouldn't take 6 years for a team to be good. Plenty of teams win with freshman and sophomores, so that excuse is old.

2 good seasons...only one great season...and no plenty of teams do not...very few teams do...Lots and lots and lots of teams struggle with them...you only choose to notice the one's that suceed[/quote]


Gonzaga starts one senior. They aren't having much trouble this year. And yes, they can beat teams out of conference like Cincinnati, Illinois and Memphis. Oregon has some juniors and seniors, but they have regressed from previous seasons.