Future of CU/WSU series??

[cu8493]

I do think you're going to have a tough time winning with McDermott as coach without Doug, however. I think you guys got very lucky having the coach's son THAT talented, and getting Echenique as a transfer. Without those two, I think Creighton will struggle for a while.

So we are very lucky to get or top two players (three if you throw in Gibbs), but WSU aren't lucky to get the recruits it gets? Our transfer was becuase of luck, but WSU wasn't lucky to get Armistead? Without him, you are no where near as good as you were this year. I can just as easily say you will struggle next year without Hall and Armstead.

If that is your standard, every team won becasue they were lucky to get their top player(s). Teams get the players they get through the work of their staff. CU was Echinique's second choice when he picked Rutgers out of highshool. When his family became disenchanted with how the coaching staff handled his injury, Altman was at the top of their calling card - not becasue we were lucky, but because of the hard work the staff put in during the recruiting process. When Gibbs chose to leave Gonzaga, he contacted McDermott because of the hard work McDermott had done in recruiting him out of high school, and the situation was right for him.

CU has three very good recruits coming next year, and a very good player who redshirted this year. Altman's last couple of years aside, CU has had very good players going back 15 years before McDermott and Echinique stepped on the floor and we will continue to put very good players on the floor after those two move on. CU will not struggle next year.

[rlh04d]

So we are very lucky to get or top two players (three if you throw in Gibbs), but WSU aren't lucky to get the recruits it gets? Our transfer was becuase of luck, but WSU wasn't lucky to get Armistead? Without him, you are no where near as good as you were this year. I can just as easily say you will struggle next year without Hall and Armstead.

If that is your standard, every team won becasue they were lucky to get their top player(s). Teams get the players they get through the work of their staff. CU was Echinique's second choice when he picked Rutgers out of highshool. When his family became disenchanted with how the coaching staff handled his injury, Altman was at the top of their calling card - not becasue we were lucky, but because of the hard work the staff put in during the recruiting process. When Gibbs chose to leave Gonzaga, he contacted McDermott because of the hard work McDermott had done in recruiting him out of high school, and the situation was right for him.

CU has three very good recruits coming next year, and a very good player who redshirted this year. Altman's last couple of years aside, CU has had very good players going back 15 years before McDermott and Echinique stepped on the floor and we will continue to put very good players on the floor after those two move on. CU will not struggle next year.

We were lucky to get Armstead. I think you're always lucky to get a good player to transfer to you. Regardless of anything else, a lot of luck goes into it.

However, Marshall has a proven track record in replacing players. You can say we'll have problems next year all you want ... they said it when we lost our top 5 scorers last year. They said it when we lost four starters from the team that won the NIT Championship. OUR coach has proven he can replace his best players and be even better the next year ... has McDermott?

And I'm sorry, but Doug McDermott absolutely never would have played for Creighton if his dad wasn't the head coach. That's the definition of lucking into a good situation.

What Creighton did for the last 15 years has absolutely nothing to do with McDermott as coach. I think you're confusing yourself. I'm doubting your coach, not your program. Which is also the problem with Ech ... as you just said, his connection with ALTMAN brought him to Creighton. McDermott just happened to be there and have a great player fall into his lap because of the work of others. McDermott did not have the relationship that brought him there. I'll give you Gibbs, because that was his work

Honest question ... how do you think Creighton would have done without Doug for the last few years? Do you think McDermott is a good enough coach that he would have been able to win the MVC and two NCAA games without a national POY candidate that he didn't have to recruit? how good do you think Creighton's current team without Doug would have been?

[cu36]

What Creighton did for the last 15 years has absolutely nothing to do with McDermott as coach. I think you're confusing yourself. I'm doubting your coach, not your program. Which is also the problem with Ech ... as you just said, his connection with ALTMAN brought him to Creighton. McDermott just happened to be there and have a great player fall into his lap because of the work of others. McDermott did not have the relationship that brought him there. I'll give you Gibbs, because that was his work

Rlh04d, I have to question your logic. We have another post on this board asking how much influence a coach has on their team winning. Granted only 13 have responded at this point, but no one has voted that the coach has 'insignificant influence'. I would equate 'insignificant influence' with having absolutely nothing to do with a team's success. I can only assume that you have not voted on that issue yet since 100% of voters agree that the head coach has some influence on a team winning.

So I ask, how is it that 100% of these people agree that the coach has an impact on their team's success, but coach McD has 'absolutely nothing' to do with what CU did for the last 15 years?

[Snaggletooth]

Why are CU fans still hanging around here? Don't you have your own conference board?

[Deanthonybowdenfan]

As of now, we are still in the Valley. And roots run deep, for a couple years my blood will be a concoction of Valley and Big East. I for one, still feel like a mid-major Valley program. Thats the one thing I will miss most about the Valley, being the hunter, instead of the hunted. Although in a sense we will be more of the hunter now. Considering in the Valley we have always had a target on our backs being everyone's biggest conference game, but in the Big East we will be looked at as the little school from Omaha. Much respect for the Valley, under-rated.

P.S.- I'm sure Wichita fans will try to disagree about the "being everyone's biggest conference game". Before you disagree check the attendance records for yall's games on the road in the Valley vs. ours. Don't mean to start something, but my guess is it will with someone.

[Snaggletooth]

As of now, we are still in the Valley.

Not in basketball. All your shares have already been divided up.

There is the baseball forum that would be relevant I guess.

[rlh04d]

What Creighton did for the last 15 years has absolutely nothing to do with McDermott as coach. I think you're confusing yourself. I'm doubting your coach, not your program. Which is also the problem with Ech ... as you just said, his connection with ALTMAN brought him to Creighton. McDermott just happened to be there and have a great player fall into his lap because of the work of others. McDermott did not have the relationship that brought him there. I'll give you Gibbs, because that was his work

Rlh04d, I have to question your logic. We have another post on this board asking how much influence a coach has on their team winning. Granted only 13 have responded at this point, but no one has voted that the coach has 'insignificant influence'. I would equate 'insignificant influence' with having absolutely nothing to do with a team's success. I can only assume that you have not voted on that issue yet since 100% of voters agree that the head coach has some influence on a team winning.

So I ask, how is it that 100% of these people agree that the coach has an impact on their team's success, but coach McD has 'absolutely nothing' to do with what CU did for the last 15 years?

Good God ...

I don't know how to say this in a way that is not belittling you:

I am questioning McDermott's ability as a head coach.

You responded to that by citing Creighton's continued success for the last 15 years as why it will continue.

I am not doubting Creighton's success over 15 years.

I am not doubting that McDermott has contributed to that success.

I am not doubting that McDermott has influence in the success that's come under him as coach.

I am stating that there is NO reason to cite 15 years of Creighton success as why you will continue to have no problem when McDermott has only been there for three years.

The 12 years of Creighton success before McDermott arrived has nothing to do with McDermott.

Because he WASN'T THERE.

I'm drawing a line between Altman and McDermott here.

You're trying to give McDermott credit for Altman's success. It's not luck that McDermott got Echenique, because he had a relationship with ... Altman? I'm not saying it's luck for Creighton. I'm saying it's luck for McDermott. THIS coach. This ONE coach. How can I say this simpler for you?

In fact, it is you that is arguing that the coach doesn't matter. By citing Creighton's success as a program rather than individual successes related to McDermott, you're essentially stating that Creighton is so good of a program it doesn't matter who coaches there, because you'll be successful regardless, just because of the name on the jersey.

Why is this so hard to understand? This isn't about your program. Stop citing things that are about your program. We're talking about a coach.

So I'll answer your question even though you ignored mine: McDermott had nothing to do with 15 years of Creighton success because he's only been there for there. 3 does not equal 15. He had something to do with a small portion of that 15 years, but he was coaching AGAINST Creighton for 5 of those years.

[SHOXMVC]

What Creighton did for the last 15 years has absolutely nothing to do with McDermott as coach. I think you're confusing yourself. I'm doubting your coach, not your program. Which is also the problem with Ech ... as you just said, his connection with ALTMAN brought him to Creighton. McDermott just happened to be there and have a great player fall into his lap because of the work of others. McDermott did not have the relationship that brought him there. I'll give you Gibbs, because that was his work

Rlh04d, I have to question your logic. We have another post on this board asking how much influence a coach has on their team winning. Granted only 13 have responded at this point, but no one has voted that the coach has 'insignificant influence'. I would equate 'insignificant influence' with having absolutely nothing to do with a team's success. I can only assume that you have not voted on that issue yet since 100% of voters agree that the head coach has some influence on a team winning.

So I ask, how is it that 100% of these people agree that the coach has an impact on their team's success, but coach McD has 'absolutely nothing' to do with what CU did for the last 15 years?

Good God ...

I don't know how to say this in a way that is not belittling you:

I am questioning McDermott's ability as a head coach.

You responded to that by citing Creighton's continued success for the last 15 years as why it will continue.

I am not doubting Creighton's success over 15 years.

I am not doubting that McDermott has contributed to that success.

I am not doubting that McDermott has influence in the success that's come under him as coach.

I am stating that there is NO reason to cite 15 years of Creighton success as why you will continue to have no problem when McDermott has only been there for three years.

The 12 years of Creighton success before McDermott arrived has nothing to do with McDermott.

Because he WASN'T THERE.

I'm drawing a line between Altman and McDermott here.

You're trying to give McDermott credit for Altman's success. It's not luck that McDermott got Echenique, because he had a relationship with ... Altman? I'm not saying it's luck for Creighton. I'm saying it's luck for McDermott. THIS coach. This ONE coach. How can I say this simpler for you?

In fact, it is you that is arguing that the coach doesn't matter. By citing Creighton's success as a program rather than individual successes related to McDermott, you're essentially stating that Creighton is so good of a program it doesn't matter who coaches there, because you'll be successful regardless, just because of the name on the jersey.

Why is this so hard to understand? This isn't about your program. Stop citing things that are about your program. We're talking about a coach.

Sometimes you have to get out your Big Chief tablet and crayons to explain things to some people.

[cu36]

What Creighton did for the last 15 years has absolutely nothing to do with McDermott as coach. I think you're confusing yourself. I'm doubting your coach, not your program. Which is also the problem with Ech ... as you just said, his connection with ALTMAN brought him to Creighton. McDermott just happened to be there and have a great player fall into his lap because of the work of others. McDermott did not have the relationship that brought him there. I'll give you Gibbs, because that was his work

Rlh04d, I have to question your logic. We have another post on this board asking how much influence a coach has on their team winning. Granted only 13 have responded at this point, but no one has voted that the coach has 'insignificant influence'. I would equate 'insignificant influence' with having absolutely nothing to do with a team's success. I can only assume that you have not voted on that issue yet since 100% of voters agree that the head coach has some influence on a team winning.

So I ask, how is it that 100% of these people agree that the coach has an impact on their team's success, but coach McD has 'absolutely nothing' to do with what CU did for the last 15 years?

Good God ...

I don't know how to say this in a way that is not belittling you:

I am questioning McDermott's ability as a head coach.

You responded to that by citing Creighton's continued success for the last 15 years as why it will continue.

I am not doubting Creighton's success over 15 years.

I am not doubting that McDermott has contributed to that success.

I am not doubting that McDermott has influence in the success that's come under him as coach.

I am stating that there is NO reason to cite 15 years of Creighton success as why you will continue to have no problem when McDermott has only been there for three years.

The 12 years of Creighton success before McDermott arrived has nothing to do with McDermott.

Because he WASN'T THERE.

I'm drawing a line between Altman and McDermott here.

You're trying to give McDermott credit for Altman's success. It's not luck that McDermott got Echenique, because he had a relationship with ... Altman? I'm not saying it's luck for Creighton. I'm saying it's luck for McDermott. THIS coach. This ONE coach. How can I say this simpler for you?

In fact, it is you that is arguing that the coach doesn't matter. By citing Creighton's success as a program rather than individual successes related to McDermott, you're essentially stating that Creighton is so good of a program it doesn't matter who coaches there, because you'll be successful regardless, just because of the name on the jersey.

Why is this so hard to understand? This isn't about your program. Stop citing things that are about your program. We're talking about a coach.

So I'll answer your question even though you ignored mine: McDermott had nothing to do with 15 years of Creighton success because he's only been there for there. 3 does not equal 15. He had something to do with a small portion of that 15 years, but he was coaching AGAINST Creighton for 5 of those years.

Thanks for your consideration for my feelings, but rest assured there isn't a thing you can do with your keyboard that can hurt them. So belittle away my friend.

You said what Creighton has done for the last 15 years has nothing to do with McD as coach. That's all I was contesting. He has had a lot to do with the last 3 years simply by being the coach, thus the reason I cited the poll. You went on in your response to say that you agree McD has had influence for the three years he has coached, wouldn't that mean he has had at least something to do with the last 15 years? I never said that 3 years equal 15, but the 3 are a part of the 15. So to say he has had nothing to do with the last 15 years is false.

If you meant to draw a line between Altman and McD then do so by referring to the 12 years previous to McD. But the last 15 years include McD.

[cu36]

Sometimes you have to get out your Big Chief tablet and crayons to explain things to some people.

Shoxmvc, is it safe to assume I am not invited to your birthday party?