Kent's So-Called Success

[dthomas=ddixon]

I didn't know Kents exact record over the last few years so I decided to do a little research. I was a bi surprised at what I found. Listening to the Kent supporters you would think the last few years have been the Glory Years of Duck basketball. The reality is though, they've been the worst since Kent has been coach.

According to Wiki he has had one, ONE winning record in Pac10 play over the last six years. When you bring a class like he did with Hairston, Luenen, Taylor, and Oguchi along a player like Brooks the year before, & have that kind of record....there's something wrong.

People who say that we will turn things around & be great next year, where is that reasoning coming from? In 2004-2005 we had the same situation. Too many freshman & not enough veteren players, resulted in a 14-13 record. The next year though, that was gonna be when everything clicked & those young guys were gonna be great....except they had an even worse record at 15-18. How, after the worst season in the Kent era, under the same circumstances will the team "turn it around" and be great next year? There's no way.

In 2006-2007 we returned 4 starters from an Elite-8 team & went 18-14 overall, 9-9 in conference. What's the excuse for that year? Were the players just "not buying into his system"? Or were 3 Seniors "not enough veteren players"?

To me, a record like that is not acceptable in this era of Oregon Athletics & with the level of talent that was here over the last 6 years. Things were great during the early 2000s but instead of building on that success, we've gotten worse.


2003-04 Oregon 18-13 9-9 T-4th NIT Semifinals
2004-05 Oregon 14-13 6-12 T-8th
2005-06 Oregon 15-18 7-11 T-7th
2006-07 Oregon 29-8 11-7 T-3rd NCAA Elite 8
2007-08 Oregon 18-14 9-9 T-5th NCAA 1st Round
2008-09 Oregon 8-23 2-16

[duckgrad99]

That's a prime example when we say 1 good year surrounded by several mediocre years.

[MacDuck]

Good post dthomas.

This is one Duck who will be extremely disppointed if EK is retained. Unfortunately I have a sinking feeling he's sticking around and my gut feelings are usually about 90% correct.

[duckgrad99]

While at St. Mary's, Kent's coaching relationship with the players changed drastically. His players told Kent that they could not relate to him due to his militaristic style. From that moment on, Kent reversed his stance and became more compassionate toward his players.




I found that from Wiki as well. I thought that was kind of interesting. I've been looking back at what Kent has done in his coaching career. While Kent has done some good things for Oregon and revitalized the program, I think it's still questionable whether or not he was the right hire 12 years ago or whenever it was. He had 1 really good year and several losing seasons while coaching at St Mary's. If you cannot win at a school like that, what makes the athletic director think he could win at a pac-10 school? Since the bar has been raised, there would be no way we would take a coach like Kent today.



By the way: Kent last 5 years: 35-55 in pac-10 play
Jerry Green in his 5 years: 37-53 in pac-10 play(with not nearly the recruits Kent gets)


Neither one is good, but I think you get the point.

[UOducksTK1]

I didn't know Kents exact record over the last few years so I decided to do a little research. I was a bi surprised at what I found. Listening to the Kent supporters you would think the last few years have been the Glory Years of Duck basketball. The reality is though, they've been the worst since Kent has been coach.

According to Wiki he has had one, ONE winning record in Pac10 play over the last six years. When you bring a class like he did with Hairston, Luenen, Taylor, and Oguchi along a player like Brooks the year before, & have that kind of record....there's something wrong.

People who say that we will turn things around & be great next year, where is that reasoning coming from? In 2004-2005 we had the same situation. Too many freshman & not enough veteren players, resulted in a 14-13 record. The next year though, that was gonna be when everything clicked & those young guys were gonna be great....except they had an even worse record at 15-18. How, after the worst season in the Kent era, under the same circumstances will the team "turn it around" and be great next year? There's no way.

In 2006-2007 we returned 4 starters from an Elite-8 team & went 18-14 overall, 9-9 in conference. What's the excuse for that year? Were the players just "not buying into his system"? Or were 3 Seniors "not enough veteren players"?

To me, a record like that is not acceptable in this era of Oregon Athletics & with the level of talent that was here over the last 6 years. Things were great during the early 2000s but instead of building on that success, we've gotten worse.


2003-04 Oregon 18-13 9-9 T-4th NIT Semifinals
2004-05 Oregon 14-13 6-12 T-8th
2005-06 Oregon 15-18 7-11 T-7th
2006-07 Oregon 29-8 11-7 T-3rd NCAA Elite 8
2007-08 Oregon 18-14 9-9 T-5th NCAA 1st Round
2008-09 Oregon 8-23 2-16

Only 1 season in the last 6 years with 19+ wins. Not too impressive.

However, I'm still in favor of giving Ernie Kent one more season. Mainly because we'd lose Jamil Wilson, and potentially other players such as Dunigan, or Hump. Kent isn't a great coach, but I still believe he can turn this team into NCAA tournament contender for next year (16-18 win season). I also don't like the rumors of Few being the potential replacement. I don't see that as much of an upgrade to Kent.

[nogerO]

I didn't know Kents exact record over the last few years so I decided to do a little research. I was a bi surprised at what I found. Listening to the Kent supporters you would think the last few years have been the Glory Years of Duck basketball. The reality is though, they've been the worst since Kent has been coach.

According to Wiki he has had one, ONE winning record in Pac10 play over the last six years. When you bring a class like he did with Hairston, Luenen, Taylor, and Oguchi along a player like Brooks the year before, & have that kind of record....there's something wrong.

People who say that we will turn things around & be great next year, where is that reasoning coming from? In 2004-2005 we had the same situation. Too many freshman & not enough veteren players, resulted in a 14-13 record. The next year though, that was gonna be when everything clicked & those young guys were gonna be great....except they had an even worse record at 15-18. How, after the worst season in the Kent era, under the same circumstances will the team "turn it around" and be great next year? There's no way.

In 2006-2007 we returned 4 starters from an Elite-8 team & went 18-14 overall, 9-9 in conference. What's the excuse for that year? Were the players just "not buying into his system"? Or were 3 Seniors "not enough veteren players"?

To me, a record like that is not acceptable in this era of Oregon Athletics & with the level of talent that was here over the last 6 years. Things were great during the early 2000s but instead of building on that success, we've gotten worse.


2003-04 Oregon 18-13 9-9 T-4th NIT Semifinals
2004-05 Oregon 14-13 6-12 T-8th
2005-06 Oregon 15-18 7-11 T-7th
2006-07 Oregon 29-8 11-7 T-3rd NCAA Elite 8
2007-08 Oregon 18-14 9-9 T-5th NCAA 1st Round
2008-09 Oregon 8-23 2-16

Only 1 season in the last 6 years with 19+ wins. Not too impressive.

However, I'm still in favor of giving Ernie Kent one more season. Mainly because we'd lose Jamil Wilson, and potentially other players such as Dunigan, or Hump. Kent isn't a great coach, but I still believe he can turn this team into NCAA tournament contender for next year (16-18 win season). I also don't like the rumors of Few being the potential replacement. I don't see that as much of an upgrade to Kent.

Hate to disagree with you TK but, 16-18 wins WON'T get us into the dance, probably the NIT. But I really don't see it happening. I'm guessing 12-14 wins next year. Time will tell...

[UOducksTK1]

I didn't know Kents exact record over the last few years so I decided to do a little research. I was a bi surprised at what I found. Listening to the Kent supporters you would think the last few years have been the Glory Years of Duck basketball. The reality is though, they've been the worst since Kent has been coach.

According to Wiki he has had one, ONE winning record in Pac10 play over the last six years. When you bring a class like he did with Hairston, Luenen, Taylor, and Oguchi along a player like Brooks the year before, & have that kind of record....there's something wrong.

People who say that we will turn things around & be great next year, where is that reasoning coming from? In 2004-2005 we had the same situation. Too many freshman & not enough veteren players, resulted in a 14-13 record. The next year though, that was gonna be when everything clicked & those young guys were gonna be great....except they had an even worse record at 15-18. How, after the worst season in the Kent era, under the same circumstances will the team "turn it around" and be great next year? There's no way.

In 2006-2007 we returned 4 starters from an Elite-8 team & went 18-14 overall, 9-9 in conference. What's the excuse for that year? Were the players just "not buying into his system"? Or were 3 Seniors "not enough veteren players"?

To me, a record like that is not acceptable in this era of Oregon Athletics & with the level of talent that was here over the last 6 years. Things were great during the early 2000s but instead of building on that success, we've gotten worse.


2003-04 Oregon 18-13 9-9 T-4th NIT Semifinals
2004-05 Oregon 14-13 6-12 T-8th
2005-06 Oregon 15-18 7-11 T-7th
2006-07 Oregon 29-8 11-7 T-3rd NCAA Elite 8
2007-08 Oregon 18-14 9-9 T-5th NCAA 1st Round
2008-09 Oregon 8-23 2-16

Only 1 season in the last 6 years with 19+ wins. Not too impressive.

However, I'm still in favor of giving Ernie Kent one more season. Mainly because we'd lose Jamil Wilson, and potentially other players such as Dunigan, or Hump. Kent isn't a great coach, but I still believe he can turn this team into NCAA tournament contender for next year (16-18 win season). I also don't like the rumors of Few being the potential replacement. I don't see that as much of an upgrade to Kent.

Hate to disagree with you TK but, 16-18 wins WON'T get us into the dance, probably the NIT. But I really don't see it happening. I'm guessing 12-14 wins next year. Time will tell...

I never said 16-18 would get us into the dance, but merely we would contend for it. If the Pac-10 is deep that year, and/or if we finish strong in the pac-10 tournament, An NCAA tournament berth isn't completely out of the question.

12-14 is likely, but I don't think 16-18 wins is out of the question.

Either way, this team will be better, and will be in the middle of the pac-10, instead of the bottom.

[dthomas=ddixon]

After a season like this past one, how are we gonna turn it around & be that competive? After the worst season is the Kent era he's gonna be able to just turn it right around in one season?! Seriously?!

Wilson is going to be a nice addition but he better be really good already cuz he ain't gonne get any better once he get's here. I doubt we see any improvement from anyone next year. Just like every year.

[TTownDuck]

Let me start out by saying I've been a proud member of the anti-EK crowd since 2003, well before most.

But 16-18 wins isn't out of the question, IMO. By all accounts, the OOC schedule is going to be incredibly weak next year. A middling Big 12 team as part of the Pac/Big 12 Challenge might be the headliner. Kind of like 2006-07, when we played @ Georgetown and then 11 weak sisters on our way to 12-0 heading into Pac-10 play. Be prepared for an 11-1, 10-2 non-conference record.

Add to the equation two more things: We should be better, and the Pac-10 should be much worse. I mean, going 6-12 would put us right there at 16, 17 wins, and I think the Pac-10 might be so weak we could hover around .500 most of the conference season. Going .500 in the Pac might just be enough for 20 wins, if the OOC schedule is as poor as I'm hearing.

Though if the schedule is that poor, 20 wins won't be good enough to make the Big Dance, and Ernie still might be canned.

[dthomas=ddixon]

Let me start out by saying I've been a proud member of the anti-EK crowd since 2003, well before most.

But 16-18 wins isn't out of the question, IMO. By all accounts, the OOC schedule is going to be incredibly weak next year. A middling Big 12 team as part of the Pac/Big 12 Challenge might be the headliner. Kind of like 2006-07, when we played @ Georgetown and then 11 weak sisters on our way to 12-0 heading into Pac-10 play. Be prepared for an 11-1, 10-2 non-conference record.

Add to the equation two more things: We should be better, and the Pac-10 should be much worse. I mean, going 6-12 would put us right there at 16, 17 wins, and I think the Pac-10 might be so weak we could hover around .500 most of the conference season. Going .500 in the Pac might just be enough for 20 wins, if the OOC schedule is as poor as I'm hearing.

Though if the schedule is that poor, 20 wins won't be good enough to make the Big Dance, and Ernie still might be canned.

Great post, you changed my mind. I totally forgot about the weak OOC schedule that EK is likely to put together. With that it wouldn't be that hard get around 16-18 wins.

So, i guess my point now is that this team will not be that improved. The record will be but this team isn't going to all of a sudden be great next year.

[duckgrad99]

Agreed guys. The thing is, Joe Schmo could be the coach next year and this team could probably still win 16-18 games. Why settle for that though? We need to aim higher.