Stop at Step One

Gary attended the game and wrote the story without ever getting off of his writers arse and actually researching the subject. Gonzaga's success came before all four of Gary's so called receipe's for success. It's success is directly attributed to the QUALITY OF KIDS that they recruit. They recruit student athletes who are going to be around for four years and develop into men. They don't have the Blue chips who are looking for a better deal and thirty shots a game, they recruit Blue Collar guys who love to play the game of basketball. Someone has to dive for the loose balls, take the elbows to the chin, set the hard picks, these are the core kids that they recruit - Stockton, Dickow, Mallon, Knight, Stepp, Turioff, Kuso, Pendo, Ravio. Since the players stay for 4 they have the time to mature and with a stong work ethic they naturally fit into a team mentality.

Regarding Few, he is an outstanding program admiunistrator. As far as the actual coaching of the game goes, he flat out sucks. Look at the Zags history in the last 3 or 4 years against the big name coaches, the Zags have had the lead or been within one or two buckets in the closing minutes of these key games and Few has gotten his ass kicked every time. Bob Knight, Bennett, Coach K, Howland, Calipari flat out own his ass when comes to game time.

Gary was right about adding a little luck.

Gonzaga's great run of success in the NCAA's began with a win against a Minnesota team that suspended four players, including two starters.  Maybe Gonzaga wins that game anyway, but only maybe.

C'mon now....let's look at the teams coached by those guys you are naming as outcoaching him.

WSU, Duke, UCLA, Memphis.....let's be honest, those were better teams...period. The Texas Tech game at the beginning of the year was with us minus Heytvelt and Steven Gray.  Using your same logic, in the past year he has beat teams coached by Roy Williams and Jim Calhoun....2 of the most respected coaches in the game and of all time. 

In essence, your argument holds no value.....think back to last year after they lost Heytvelt, were completely outmatched, and nearly beat Memphis after 2 days of practice.  The fact is he is a great administrator and a great game coach.  They lose games to these high profile coaches because they are building an elite program.  They play anyone, anywhere and do quite well.....those are the facts!

Once you have the coach, it's important to keep him, but in all honesty Midmajors can't always compete salary wise. Milwaukee's athletic department can't compete with Tennessee's salary offer. Even if you can't keep a coach, four years with a Bruce Pearl or Bo Ryan is better than 10 years with a nobody.

It is especially important, as a midmajor, to be willing to find a new coach in a heartbeat. Midmajor programs typically don't have the history and tradition to fall back on for the national exposure. If a midmajor coach underperforms, he needs to be out the door fast. Even in down years, people know who Illinois is. UIC however? If they aren't a 20 win team sitting on the bubble, no one cares about them. Midmajors can't afford to have down years if they want to be considered a prominent program.

Gonzaga may be a winning program now, but as soon as they drop to .500 for a season people will forget they ever existed and their coach will be trying to hop over to the Pac-10 in a heartbeat.

I like your arguments, but I think you are a little off, as I am talking about X's and O's which is what game coaching is about. Further, outside of Memphis (in the case of Duke, if I recall, they were both ranked in the top ten, so they were approximately equal) , for the most part the Zags were favorite in each one of the big losses.

Few vs Bob Knight  record 0-3, all three games Zags were ranked or in the case of March Madness seeded higher than Tech, all three games Few loses.

Few vs UCLA in an epic March Madness Game - Zags up by 20 in the 2nd half and lose in O-T. Ouch, if Few was a great coach this doesn't happen. A great coach doesn't lose a 20 point lead EVER, while an average coach wins and loses these types of games. By the way this game is classified as EPIC because it is deemd to be UCLA's great comeback story, however, the other side of the coin is that it is an epic because very FEW teams give up a 20 point lead in the 2nd 1/2 in the Big Dance.

Few vs Tony Bennett 0-2, anyone who objectively watched both of the games would clearly see that Few was out coached.

If you want to focus on just this year's losses against the big names:

WSU, Oklahoma, Texas Tech (with its 500 record), Memphis, Tenn each and every case the Zags had a chance to win under the 2 minute mark and lost. The Oklahoma game is a perfect example of Few's idea of game coaching: down by two, plenty of time on the clock (approx 10 seconds) OK makes its final free throw, instead of calling a timeout,setting a play, and assuring that all of your three point shooters are in the game Few lets Pargo attempt a playground move by driving the length of the floor and heaving a three point attempt, of course the shot was BLOCKED, since everyone in the building knew Pargo was going to shoot. Nice job, I bet the unused time out was nice to have on the bus to the Airport. So would you rather have Pargo shoot the three or just maybe Downs, Daye, Bouldin, Pendo, my sister?

The key to great coaching is in the final minutes where coaching actually has its greatest impact on the game and Few is at best average. AGAIN, I truely believe outside of X's and O's he is a great program administrator - recruiting, scheduling, player mangement and development, etc.