PDA

View Full Version : One reason GU basketball will not fade away any time soon



Rubbadub
02-13-2007, 04:25 PM
1. Would any other arena in the country be pumped like this against USF?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJbOCbiQSI

If you want to add a reason of your own, please do so.

gozagswoohoo
02-13-2007, 04:34 PM
2. Mr. Few

lothar98zag
02-13-2007, 04:43 PM
That video looks very familiar...


I know, it's one of the 3 links provided for the gameday bunnies thread -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJbOCbiQSI



Oh yeah, #3 - What the students chanted as the players huddled after the game... We are...G U!

thickman1
02-13-2007, 04:44 PM
1. Bouldin
2. Pargo
3. Pmac
4. Kuso
5. Pendo
6. Micah
7. Larry G.
8. Mast
9. Sorenson
10. Foster
11. Burgess

Recruits:
1. Austin Daye
2. Steven Gray
3. Robert Sacre
4. Ira Brown
5. Andy Poling
6. Brock Osweiler

zagfever86
02-13-2007, 04:47 PM
Reasons:

1.) Austin Daye
2.) Stephen Gray
3.) Robert Sacre
4.) Matt Bouldin
5.) Jeremy Pargo

Asotin
02-13-2007, 05:05 PM
Reason 24b.) The weak WCC. Making the dance comparatively easy to reach most years. :p










You knew someone was gonna say it.

BobZag
02-13-2007, 05:36 PM
But we expected that from a Husky, not a Coug. ;)

RebornZag
02-13-2007, 06:09 PM
Mark Few

gozagswoohoo
02-13-2007, 06:10 PM
check #2 :-)

RenoZag
02-13-2007, 07:12 PM
Because the program has been built for the long haul, not the short term.

sullyzag66
02-13-2007, 07:28 PM
Mark Few
The local sports radio station in Portland is reporting today that there is a clause in Mark Few's contract that allows him to leave if he is offered a job a certain institutions. John Canzano, columnist for The Oregonian, is saying that University of Oregon is one of them. Talk here is that Ernie Kent's days are numbered if Oregon falters in the rest of the season and doesn't make it to the NCAA Tournament.

RenoZag
02-13-2007, 09:08 PM
If Few left GU to go to Oregon, they would be getting a good coach.

sittingon50
02-13-2007, 09:50 PM
I've always felt that Mark might leave for the Oregon job (as have many others) but I think the timing now would be terrible. Even with the continuity of Billy taking over the program, it would look like Mark was bailing.

OTOH, if he REALLY wants the UO job, he might not get another chance.

Asotin
02-14-2007, 07:46 AM
All in good fun.

RebornZag
02-14-2007, 09:43 AM
I believe I heard, in an earier post months ago, that Mark Few told certain recruite (I think it was Daye) that he was going to be here for the duration of that players years at GU. I believe that if Few did say that, he will keep his word. I doubt if Few will leave. He has a great group of guys coming in next year and he has to be excited about that. If he leaves after one disappointing year he does look pretty self-centered to me. Most coaches in Mark's caliber, would leave with a good group of guys they leave behind.

Symi81
02-14-2007, 09:58 AM
That video is a perfect example of why the TV camera is currently on the wrong side

GoZags
05-09-2016, 12:10 PM
Because the program has been built for the long haul, not the short term.

I agree with RenoZag .... and I thought reviving this long ago thread "could" make for some interesting off-season musings.

What's YOUR reason this "cute little run" is still going strong?

DixieZag
05-09-2016, 01:08 PM
I agree with RenoZag .... and I thought reviving this long ago thread "could" make for some interesting off-season musings.

What's YOUR reason this "cute little run" is still going strong?

Our athletic director has not gotten the attention deserved. Other than Few and maybe a few assistant coaches, Roth has done more than anyone.

He had the authority and desire early on to decide definitively to not accept summing up as " a couple years of unexpected good times, it will provide great stories" approach. He and Few immediately committed to the "what would/did Duke do in this situation" approach. In fact, I think they even contacted Duke and traveled to ask direct questions and Duke nicely helped them.

The men's and women's success is the validation of his career and he will fight to any length to address any sign of falling back. When he retires, it will be non-negotiable that the same total commitment goes forward.

Birddog
05-09-2016, 02:03 PM
Way way back in HS Latin I remember them saying "carpe diem".

Martin Centre Mad Man
05-09-2016, 03:19 PM
Tommy Lloyd.

Zagger
05-09-2016, 03:39 PM
There's just so many reasons that when combined they give the whole thing a lasting synergy. Spokane is fairly smitten with the Zags too. If Few, Tommy (or both) were to leave I think GU's in the position to pick the right/best replacements. Time changes things but time has certainly been good for the Zags and by all accounts it sure looks as if GU will only continue to get better.

gonzagafan62
05-09-2016, 03:42 PM
Great university chemistry. Everyone talks about how the team loves each other, but it's an entire city that loves their team. That's why we aren't going away

MTZag03
05-09-2016, 08:38 PM
Our athletic director has not gotten the attention deserved. Other than Few and maybe a few assistant coaches, Roth has done more than anyone.

He had the authority and desire early on to decide definitively to not accept summing up as " a couple years of unexpected good times, it will provide great stories" approach. He and Few immediately committed to the "what would/did Duke do in this situation" approach. In fact, I think they even contacted Duke and traveled to ask direct questions and Duke nicely helped them.

The men's and women's success is the validation of his career and he will fight to any length to address any sign of falling back. When he retires, it will be non-negotiable that the same total commitment goes forward.

I agree. I think it's become a bit bigger than Few and it's very much in the institution. Not that Few isn't critical, but there is a framework to continue the excellence for a long time. Also excellent thread resurrection.

Coach Crazy
05-10-2016, 07:30 AM
GU is a brand, now. It is bigger than Few, it is bigger than Tommy, it is bigger than all of us. We aren't a blue blood, yet...but we are a brand that can stand losing it's current personnel. I could only see Few leaving if that is what he really wanted, regardless the consequences. If he has any significant reservation about experiencing the possibility of the Monson Effect, then he's not leaving.

However, if Tommy decides to stay in the face of some good job opportunities to be a head coach, that also has some interesting implications. So, who knows...

MontanaCoyote
05-10-2016, 08:17 AM
The super big time isn't all it's cut out to be. There's something really special about being a smaller (top quality academic and athletic) school that can and does compete with the so called blue blood's. I like it right where we are and I think the future bodes well for us. The incoming classes of recruits speak damn highly of Gonzaga sports and academics, don't you think!?

thegloriousgoateeofKP
05-10-2016, 08:30 AM
Because the program has been built for the long haul, not the short term.

Apologies if this has been discussed ad-nauseum before. But, why would a program that was building for the long haul build only a 6,000-seat arena?

I'm not saying it was a bad decision by any means...just one I'm curious about. How does that decision correlate with the long-term goals of the program?

TheZagPhish
05-10-2016, 08:42 AM
GU fosters a culture of love, respect and hard work. Networks built on those cornerstones often do well over time.

Also: Fun little thread resurrection! Rubb would be pleased.

maynard g krebs
05-10-2016, 09:24 AM
Apologies if this has been discussed ad-nauseum before. But, why would a program that was building for the long haul build only a 6,000-seat arena?

I'm not saying it was a bad decision by any means...just one I'm curious about. How does that decision correlate with the long-term goals of the program?

It has. As I remember it, that was what was possible financially. It was reported here that 2000 more seats would have doubled the cost.

MDABE80
05-10-2016, 09:49 AM
It has. As I remember it, that was what was possible financially. It was reported here that 2000 more seats would have doubled the cost.

We ran out of money.... If you might remember, the Baseball team didn't have a place to play for over 2 years. So it was "add more seats on construction" or "get the kids a baseball field". The Padres did the best they could.

LongIslandZagFan
05-10-2016, 09:54 AM
We ran out of money.... If you might remember, the Baseball team didn't have a place to play for over 2 years. So it was "add more seats on construction" or "get the kids a baseball field". The Padres did the best they could.

Actually, IIRC it was an issue of diminishing returns. The costs to add those 2000 seats would, even when filled, had been a money loser for a long time. The Pontiff might want to chime in on this, but my recollection was those 2,000 seats would have almost equaled the cost of the current building. Plus you add in the issue of having a similar sized arena less than 2 miles from campus... it didn't make sense.

But I am getting old... so my memory might be a smidge off on some of that.

Angelo Roncalli
05-10-2016, 01:53 PM
Actually, IIRC it was an issue of diminishing returns. The costs to add those 2000 seats would, even when filled, had been a money loser for a long time. The Pontiff might want to chime in on this, but my recollection was those 2,000 seats would have almost equaled the cost of the current building. Plus you add in the issue of having a similar sized arena less than 2 miles from campus... it didn't make sense.

But I am getting old... so my memory might be a smidge off on some of that.

Mostly correct. The last seat you build in an arena (say, seat 8,000) is the most expensive to build. The main cost in arenas is for structural steel. Costs for structural steel increase geometrically. It costs much, much more to build an 8,000 seat arena that a 6,000 seat. The last seat built, being the least desirable, also produces the least revenue. The revenue generated from an additional 2,000 seats would not have paid the debt incurred to build to 8,000 seats.

http://www.kxly.com/news/Good-Question-Why-didn-t-Gonzaga-build-the-McCarthey-Center-with-more-seats/693260

GoZags
05-10-2016, 03:01 PM
Mostly correct. The last seat you build in an arena (say, seat 8,000) is the most expensive to build. The main cost in arenas is for structural steel. Costs for structural steel increase geometrically. It costs much, much more to build an 8,000 seat arena that a 6,000 seat. The last seat built, being the least desirable, also produces the least revenue. The revenue generated from an additional 2,000 seats would not have paid the debt incurred to build to 8,000 seats.

http://www.kxly.com/news/Good-Question-Why-didn-t-Gonzaga-build-the-McCarthey-Center-with-more-seats/693260

You were more verbose (and detailed) with your earlier explanations .... one of which was during the thread discussing the 2010 KXLY piece. Interesting reading the comments from '10 .... given that this was a topic that'd been beaten to death even then. But thanks (as always) for the clarification.
http://guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?27278-McCarthey-Center-too-small&p=544359#post544359

LongIslandZagFan
05-10-2016, 04:28 PM
Thanks Pontiff. Knew it was something like that.

MDABE80
05-10-2016, 05:04 PM
Not enough money...........it's always the money. So says the guys who built it;)

LongIslandZagFan
05-10-2016, 06:23 PM
Not enough money...........it's always the money. So says the guys who built it;)

Yes and no. I suspect if they wanted the money... they could have gotten it But the reality was, they had no idea how long the ride was going to be at the time... if they could go back in time, perhaps they'd have gone bigger. It was very early on, and if the "wheels feel off" they wanted an arena whose budget wasn't going to kill them if it all went away.

cjm720
05-10-2016, 06:49 PM
Great thread. I'd chalk it up to Mark Few...and having the trust of the administration. Few's longevity and our continued success are not exclusive of each other IMO.

Zagceo
05-10-2016, 06:52 PM
Had they known the debt could have been re-structured from 6% to 3 or 4.......the decision might have been different.

Zagdawg
05-17-2016, 03:12 PM
Gonzaga Guru Retweeted
TJ Rushing ‏@TjRushing May 14
AJ Green picking up where he left off at state; jaw-dropping good. Gonzaga, Nebraska, Minnesota interest #BatL2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWVmcYICRVk


Gonzaga Guru Retweeted
Zachary Lyon ‏@F150Zach 27m27 minutes ago
2018 PG Jordan McCabe of Wisconsin Playground says he has interest from Butler, Gonzaga, MSU, & OSU among others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb8GCUQdvr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C06PW3OulKU