(05-12-2020 11:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2020 08:02 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-12-2020 05:57 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga was irrelevant before Monson/Few. NOBODY talked about Gonzaga before Monson got them the Cinderella slipper. You know it, but you’re trying to stretch two great Monson years into eight, which is absurd.

Your original quote was Few. You later amended it to Monson.

If it’s your original quote of Few, Gonzaga was 3rd among mid-majors for 8 years. That’s not “irrelevant”.

If it’s your amended argument of Monson, Gonzaga won 70% of its games for 5 years (1 NCAA/2 NIT) then had 1 mediocre year then Monson took over. That isn’t great but it isn’t irrelevant either. There’s a lot of space between great and irrelevant. Those years were the genesis to building Gonzaga’s program.

They were decent leading up to Monson. Monson took them from decent to good. Few took them from good to great to elite.

You keep creating strawmen with “great”, “elite”, & the UMass comparison when those words didn’t come out of my mouth. I challenged that Gonzaga was “irrelevant” because they posted the 3rd best mid-major win total in an 8-year span. Apparently you didn’t like that factoid because you created a bunch of arguments I didn’t make.

I said after Few they will be irrelevant again, and they were irrelevant for their entire basketball history, save the two seasons with Monson. Before him they were best known for John Stockton, and even he didn’t go dancing.

At first I was surprised they were up there with UNM and UMass, but I looked into your argument and they clearly don’t belong because their conference and schedules were absolute trash and they still only made two dances. Their win total was padded by Monson’s two seasons. They were not regarded on a national level, therefore they were irrelevant to the national scene in college hoops, and that’s why they were a Cinderella with Monson in the first place!

You are arbitrarily selecting the win total for 8 years to define their entire existence before Few with total disregard to their opponents and tournament appearances. Almost a third of those wins were in the two seasons with Monson and his protégée.

Gonzaga shouldn’t fall off like USF and Loyola Marymount did, but who thought UNLV would fall off with all their resources? Wake? DePaul? St. John’s? College hoops is ALL about the coach, so unless they replace Few with a home run hire, odds are they will go the way of the Blue Demon.

Esayem, Gonzaga went under Jay Hillock from 1978–81 and from 1985–97 a collective 252–171 (.596). A handful of NIT and NCAA appearances. I would not call that "irrelevant."

And the program was very solid in the 1950s and 1960s.

Now your argument that Gonzaga was irrelevant back then (1950s through 1990s) compared to what it is now ... good point. And yes Gonzaga was, at best, "fairly irrelevant" on a national level prior to Monson/Few. But it's all relative.

My take is that Gonzaga was "reasonably regionally relevant" starting in the 1950s. The program became nationally relevant (almost instantly) when Few arrived (1999).

Once Few leaves, perhaps GU falls drastically. I can't predict.

(05-13-2020 03:13 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Esayem, Gonzaga went under Jay Hillock from 1978–81 and from 1985–97 a collective 252–171 (.596). A handful of NIT and NCAA appearances. I would not call that "irrelevant."

And the program was very solid in the 1950s and 1960s.

Now your argument that Gonzaga was irrelevant back then (1950s through 1990s) compared to what it is now ... good point. And yes Gonzaga was, at best, "fairly irrelevant" on a national level prior to Monson/Few. But it's all relative.

My take is that Gonzaga was "reasonably regionally relevant" starting in the 1950s. The program became nationally relevant (almost instantly) when Few arrived (1999).

Once Few leaves, perhaps GU falls drastically. I can't predict.

I don't see their first NCAA appearance until 1995.

I think the issue here is the term "irrelevant". One can argue "well, Mr. esayem, they had a basketball program and a small fanbase, so they were not irrelevant". Fine, if that's what the term means to you.

I am saying the Gonzaga program was nationally irrelevant, until Monson put them on the map with the Cinderella run to the Elite 8.* The fact that they weren't nationally ranked until the next year with Few should tell anyone they were not a national factor, therefore nationally irrelevant.

*Funny thing about that is they were a 10 seed and playing up the road in Seattle for the first two rounds. Hmmm.

(05-13-2020 03:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 03:13 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Esayem, Gonzaga went under Jay Hillock from 1978–81 and from 1985–97 a collective 252–171 (.596). A handful of NIT and NCAA appearances. I would not call that "irrelevant."

And the program was very solid in the 1950s and 1960s.

Now your argument that Gonzaga was irrelevant back then (1950s through 1990s) compared to what it is now ... good point. And yes Gonzaga was, at best, "fairly irrelevant" on a national level prior to Monson/Few. But it's all relative.

My take is that Gonzaga was "reasonably regionally relevant" starting in the 1950s. The program became nationally relevant (almost instantly) when Few arrived (1999).

Once Few leaves, perhaps GU falls drastically. I can't predict.

I don't see their first NCAA appearance until 1995.

I think the issue here is the term "irrelevant". One can argue "well, Mr. esayem, they had a basketball program and a small fanbase, so they were not irrelevant". Fine, if that's what the term means to you.

I am saying the Gonzaga program was nationally irrelevant, until Monson put them on the map with the Cinderella run to the Elite 8.* The fact that they weren't nationally ranked until the next year with Few should tell anyone they were not a national factor, therefore nationally irrelevant.

*Funny thing about that is they were a 10 seed and playing up the road in Seattle for the first two rounds. Hmmm.

Agree that the program was nationally irrelevant until Few. I think that's what confused me. GU was regionally relevant long prior to that but, admittedly, most folks could care less about regional relevance.

For example, and with my living in Nashville, Western Kentucky has been extremely regionally relevant in men's basketball for at least 50 years.

I simply make a distinction. But most would not.

Gonzaga with Few is a lot like Butler with Stevens; taking the program to that next level of greatness. So hopefully whenever Few hangs it up–probably a long ways away–they find somebody that can sustain the success.

(05-13-2020 06:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga with Few is a lot like Butler with Stevens; taking the program to that next level of greatness. So hopefully whenever Few hangs it up–probably a long ways away–they find somebody that can sustain the success.

That will be the hope if you're a GU fan. It might be a bit more challenging than at Butler. With BU in the Big East, a strong central location in Indy and the sterling Hinkle Fieldhouse as a recruiting tool ... lots to sell to future coaches and recruits. Gonzaga has some limitations in those regards.

I have to give Butler full credit for being strong after Stevens. And as a long-time Hoosier fan ... that stings a bit.

Would that Bill Dazzle's living quarters — in relation to the ladies — were the "Hinkle Fieldhouse of bachelor pads."