Waters Revisited
- Thread starter RUsojo
- Start date
We just did not win enough
That is what it comes down to
I felt at the time he had to go, and I was loyal to all coaches up to then and willing to give a long leash to all of them
Of course his replacement was worse , but that is not the point
Oh yea for sure at the end he had to.
But had he made the tournament right off the bat in an extended field who knows where the momentum might have carried them.
I don't remember how close we were to being picked, if inside the. 65-68
Area or not
I don't think we ever did well in league, losing almost all road games and some home ones, keeping us a lower level team
2006 19-14 (7-9)
2004 20-14 (7-9)
2002 18-13 (8-8) wins gtown (24) Cuse (14) uconn (17) Miami (13)
We weren’t close each of these years though
Last edited:
Our best year includes spoon fed NIT home games
The NIT trying to get us to the garden
The 7-9
7-9
8-8
Should be more the focus . We were not getting it done in league
Our expectations were higher than a .500 record at that point
Guess with some of this thinking, TY would had 5 in a row or 4 out of 5 years in making the NCAA's. Always thought that GW was a very good game day coach; who went up against some of the very best in the game (really liked the old BE). The BE sharks were playing with pseudo NIL dollars; and he was recruiting in the shallow end of the pool; which lead us to FHJ; then MR; then EJ..... and here we are. And I like where we are.
Fwiw after Waters was fired at five years and your expectations were raised, Pike conference win percentage his first 5 years was 35% waters was also 35%
How many five star recruits did Waters have coming in?
Did firing Waters work out well?
What is your point?
Did firing Waters work out well?
What is your point?
That’s fine as am I. You said “at that time” though so just pointing out where they were, and Pike did not have 23/24 kids signed or committed at that time.
Last edited:
I never intended to go down this road, but since janowski inserted Pike into the equation, pikes good performance gives some additional context to the disadvantages Waters had. Unfortunately for Waters he had horrible facilities and no shortcuts or NCAA rule amendments help his roster any other way. To that end a few people including @fluoxetine and maybe @bac2therac (think Bac is less an offender) aren’t appreciating the field and portal changes benefiting programs like ours.
Things are very different having 3 extra spots in the field and also the portal and the extra covid year.
Does pike have a tournament team without yeboah? Without Young?
Does pike make the tournament without geo last year?
How would this year have gone without Caleb? Without Cam?
It’s a great job by Pike to make the right moves. But something Waters didn’t have.
As an aside these are some of the reason there is more power 6 parity than ever before in CBB.
The portal changes didn't exist until AFTER Pike made us a tournament level team and everyone got the extra COVID year.
So he can crap on Pikiell
Based on your history of posting style and your takes on Pikiell and Rutgers basketball I find this very, very hard to believe.
You were indirectly discrediting what Pikiell has done here with the OP.
Why else would you be digging into the Gary Waters era as it relates to expanding the field to 68 and trying to draw comparisons.
You’re not fooling us Sojo, try a bit harder.
This is literally all you. Your first connection is to pike maybe that tells yourself more than anything else you make up? See above reason in response to flux (although it was clear in OP).
No, this is literally all you and your passive aggressive posting style where you play dumb but we all know what you’re actually intentions are.
That’s not correct. I mean the portal technically existed but you had to still sit out a year until 2021, which is the relevant part.
Yeboah was a grad transfer which was already allowed
Yeboah came in as a grad transfer, so either way he wouldn’t have had to sit out a year.
Jacob Young had to sit out a full year when he got to Rutgers.
They both came in before the new transfer rules applied so idk why they’re being brought up here.
Are you not happy that Pike has some great players coming in that will forever change our fortunes?
Grad transfers could not play right away when Waters took the job IIRC. @bac2therac @S_Janowski do you know off hand when that started?
@cm_13
But all of Pike’s competition has the same advantages…and all of Waters’ competition had the same disadvantages. The portal and the extra year is moot. As far as the extra spots, I’m pretty sure that there are all more D1 teams (and possibly some more conferences) now too.
Right, which is why there is so much parity now. Remember this wasn’t created as a Waters Pikiell comparison thread this was revisiting Waters. @S_Janowski started the comparison.
Waters was more stuck with what came in than coaches now who can retool roster very quickly.
Oh that I have no idea but it already had existed for years when Pike showed up, and it’s obviously not what anyone is talking about when they talk about the transfer portal.
The transfer market in its current form has only existed since 2021
Whether you like it or not this is a thread about Pike because no one else really cares about bracketology from 19 years ago or whatever this thread is nominally about.
That’s not what this thread was until you guys took it there. If you didn’t want to talk about waters revisited you could’ve decided not to start talking about Pikiell. Smh
Found an espn article says rule was adopted in April of 2006. Which I think must’ve been right after waters was fired.
You literally asked in the OP “how does top 68 team success match up to the history of RU coaches?”
Gtfo out of here that this thread wasn’t mean to compare Waters to Pikiell.
You’re so full of it haha.
You would be a much better poster if you just came out and stated things directly, instead of always being so passive/aggressive.
I mean if you had an empty thread here I wouldn’t have bothered responding. The conversation was already ongoing when I entered it.
Regardless, this is what happens when you nominally post about topics that are (1) pretty clearly adjacent to actually relevant topics and (2) literally no one (with the possible but honestly not likely exclusion of you) cares about as a stand-alone topic
Last edited: