Kirk Snyder

LA_Mustang · Post by **LA_Mustang** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:13 pm

No surprise but Snyder will forgo his senior season at Nevada and enter the NBA draft. It’s a good thing because Nevada would have been very scary next season if Snyder had stayed.

moodymadness · Post by **moodymadness** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:59 pm

I think he will be a mid-late first round pick. Just goes to show that 1 player can turn a program around. Nevada wasn't on the map and the next thing you know Snyder comes along and Nevada wins the WAC, goes to the Sweet 16, and becomes a cinderalla story. Hopefully the same is in store for SMU.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:19 pm

Totally ridiculous oversimplification that you guys continue to roll out every year. Last year we heard the same BS on this board by several posters claiming SMU had better talent than Nevada. I pointed out that simply wasn't true but its easier than actually spending time on checking out your facts. Also, it should be pointed out that Kirk Snyder was a highly regarded non-qualifier who had to sit out part of his freshman year because of eligibility issues.

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:43 pm

And if I recall, you have steadfastly opposed signing non-qualifers at SMU. Anyway, they can't afford the tuition, unless we can figure out the St. Joe's method for having non-qualifiers pay their own private school tuition.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:43 am

true I'm just pointing out how other Models seem to "overachieve" in comparison to SMU. There are obvious reasons we lose that don't have anything to do with coaching.

moodymadness · Post by **moodymadness** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:23 pm

If the statement that 1 player has the ability to turn a program around is seen as oversimplification, then some people are making the game of basketball far too complicated. And I am tired of excuses being made for the failure of SMU basketball. Many schools have very high standards and are able to run elite programs...Duke, Wake Forest, and Stanford are the most obvious examples. But even good, small schools like Gonzaga are able to compete on the national stage. I would like for SMU to stop making excuses and start getting results.

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:47 pm

Fazekas and Okeson helped a wee bit.

moodymadness · Post by **moodymadness** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:49 pm

fazekas and okeson were nice complimentary players, but when nevada came to smu nba scouts were in moody to see snyder. and without snyder getting nevada on the map you would have no idea who fazekas and okeson are.

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:18 pm

Stallion: "There are obvious reasons we lose that don't have anything to do with coaching."

And there are obvious reasons we lose that have everything to do with coaching. Both matter.

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:29 pm

MM- The point is that 1 player didn't make that team good. Put him on Baylor and they don't even dance. The world has been littered with stars playing on teams that didn't do well. Fasekus was pretty highly recruited and to call him a complimentary player is passing his contribution off too lightly. Snyder's performance wasn't good enough to get them as far as they went. Okeson shot lights out one game and carried them. Yes- Snyder was the star (not in that game) but he wasn't the only good player. Unless you are talking players in the league with Chamberlain or Jordan, your argument is specious. Snyder isn't in that league.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:12 pm

well if Stanford and Duke are our Models then I submit that the problem is that our faculty and administration have failed to compete ACADEMICALLY because SMU ain't going to win many recruiting battles against those schools with the acdemically superior athlete-just the facts. I'd submit that if you had a list of the Top 100 academically gifted athletes SMU might not outrecruit Stanford and Duke for ANY of them unless there was a unique family connection.

Corso · Post by **Corso** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:31 am

Stallion wrote:.... Last year we heard the same BS on this board by several posters claiming SMU had better talent than Nevada. I pointed out that simply wasn't true but its easier than actually spending time on checking out your facts. Also, it should be pointed out that Kirk Snyder was a highly regarded non-qualifier who had to sit out part of his freshman year because of eligibility issues.

It also should be pointed out that your disagreement with the comments about SMU and Nevada, in terms of relative talent, is your opinion.

moodymadness · Post by **moodymadness** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 11:55 am

Obviously, you can't go as far as Nevada did with only one good player...but that isn't my point. My point is that you need an elite player to build around and Nevada did that wonderfully by surrounding Snyder with the likes of Okeson and Fazekas. Hence the idea that one player can turn a program around. Plus, don't you think that Snyder getting constantly double teamed had something to do with Okeson and others getting wide open shots? NBA caliber players like Snyder in the college ranks make those around them better and that is exactly what happened at Nevada.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:13 pm

The POINT is that 98% of the posters on this board including YOU are completely ignorant about the talent signed by other WAC and competitor schools including non-qualifiers, partial qualifiers, minimum qualifiers and JUCOs in both FB and BB. When you suggest getting a guy like Snyder single-handedly turned around the program you are ignorant of the facts. Its part of the BIG LIE that's been going on around here for 15 years when former AD Doug Single first openly suggested that SMU didn't have to compete with the big boys in recruiting but could simply succeed by finding a few gems every year and sprinkle in a few complementary players to suceed every once in a while. It is BIG LIE told over and over on this board by Cheerleaders who don't have a clue about the facts.

moodymadness · Post by **moodymadness** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:56 pm

No, the POINT is that you can ramble on and on about JUCOs, non-qualifiers, partial qualifiers, and minimum qualifiers but at the end of the day YOU are obviously not qualified to discuss basketball if you think that the success of Nevada this season wasn't mainly due to the play of an NBA talent on the court. Sure, others did their part to take the team far in the tournament but the bottom line is that it never would have happened if Snyder didn't come on board. And to prove my point, lets sit back and observe Nevada next season. While Snyder is the NBA, Nevada will be playing with the same jerseys, in the same conference, with the same coach, but the program will take a few step backwards. Why? Because the player that took the program to the Sweet 16 will no longer be there. When that time comes, the 98% of the posters on this board that you proclaim are ignorant will sit back and laugh at your BS.

Kirk Snyder

Kirk Snyder

1st round pick

excuses, excuses

Re: