|
Post by pitbeavs on Mar 15, 2019 23:52:35 GMT -8
I don't get it, really. The men lay a turd at the end and it's FIRE TINKLE! The women lay a turd, losing two of three and, with it, a chance to bump up to a two seed, and Rueck is still a god. I want you to write a persuasive essay in which you argue that Rueck should be retained by Oregon State despite the turd at the end of the season while simultaneously arguing that the men's turd may legitimately end Wayne Tinkle's tenure at Oregon State. Be sure to emphasize the differences, if any, between Rueck's coaching record at Oregon State versus Tinkle's coaching record Oregon State. Include in your essay an analysis of the changes in attendance at home basketball during each coach's tenure at Oregon State. You may consider the differences between the women's program when Rueck was hired versus the men's program when Tinkle was hired. Use double spacing and do not use a Courier font. Um, sorry. I assign essays, not write them.
|
|
jbjam
Freshman
Posts: 127
|
Post by jbjam on Mar 16, 2019 12:47:55 GMT -8
This was (is) not a bad team. Obviously I wanted more at the end, but I think I'm taking a big picture look. I'm not sure of the freshmen coming in. Now I wish there was another 6'8 + guy. The key to success is development by individual players. Which guys will do it? Ethan? good chance. Kelley? good chance. Hollins and Washington are wild cards. From this board there are rumors that one or both are considering a transfer. If they stay and get better a little, we could be good. If Tres returns, I expect 10 league wins next year. Maybe more. I don't get it, really. The men lay a turd at the end and it's FIRE TINKLE! The women lay a turd, losing two of three and, with it, a chance to bump up to a two seed, and Rueck is still a god. One has taken their team deep into the tourney the last three seasons, and made the second round the last five... they pull in top rated recruiting classes and started with an even larger mess. One has demonstrated superior coaching acumen early on against better talent. Why is that confusing? Tinkle didnt exactly get handed the keys to much... Sadly or happily, I'm sure he will be here next year. And just because: Scott's p12 record 101-57. Tinkles 28 - 48. The women's team losing is an exception. Men's team losing is a norm.
|
|
|
Post by 76spirit on Mar 16, 2019 22:18:11 GMT -8
I’m a Beaver to the bone. Having said that, I noticed that the Ducks turned a poor season around with an exclamation point. The Beavers turned a fair season into a death march. Ugh!
|
|
|
Post by 76spirit on Mar 16, 2019 22:18:56 GMT -8
I’m a Beaver to the bone. Having said that, I noticed that the Ducks turned a poor season around with an exclamation point. The Beavers turned a fair season into a death march. Ugh!
|
|
bill82
Freshman
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 970
|
Post by bill82 on Mar 17, 2019 5:01:44 GMT -8
The only reason the team is as good as it is is because there are 3 coach's sons on the team. That's hilariously unsustainable. Disagree. WT knew when he hired Coach Thompson he had two four star sons. Thompson had just been fired from a head coaching position at Cal State Los Angeles when Tinkle called. I'm not aware that he and Tinkle had any previous relationship - other than they played college ball in the same era. Thompson's assistant salary at OSU is probably close to what he made as a HC at CSULA. Tinkle needs to fire his other assistants and find another unemployed coach with four star sons. Tinkle is probably scouring lower division HCs right now.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 17, 2019 9:48:11 GMT -8
The only reason the team is as good as it is is because there are 3 coach's sons on the team. That's hilariously unsustainable. Disagree. WT knew when he hired Coach Thompson he had two four star sons. Thompson had just been fired from a head coaching position at Cal State Los Angeles when Tinkle called. I'm not aware that he and Tinkle had any previous relationship - other than they played college ball in the same era. Thompson's assistant salary at OSU is probably close to what he made as a HC at CSULA. Tinkle needs to fire his other assistants and find another unemployed coach with four star sons. Tinkle is probably scouring lower division HCs right now. Thumbs up for being funny!
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 17, 2019 16:24:09 GMT -8
This could be placed in several threads, but...
I find it hilarious that the "defense" and support of coach Tinkle never involves that he's a good coach... x's and o's, developing/improving players. Nor a good recruiter.
The majority simply focus on what a terrible place OSU is to be able to hire a quality coach. And, of course the inevitable comparisons to past coaches. Not much "meat on the bone" in that type of "support".
But, then again it matches the program's progress!
|
|
|
Post by giantkillers83 on Mar 17, 2019 17:33:16 GMT -8
The sage Bill Walton summed it up well: “ There’s a lack of imagination on the court.” Even when they win, it’s tiring to watch.. That’s why Bill gets paid the big bucks ..... lol
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 17, 2019 18:33:25 GMT -8
The sage Bill Walton summed it up well: “ There’s a lack of imagination on the court.” Even when they win, it’s tiring to watch.. That’s why Bill gets paid the big bucks ..... lol He must, or the Pac12 picks up his personal tabs. As he mentioned umpteen times he loves him some "Puck". Walking thru the MGM post games... he was there nightly!
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Mar 17, 2019 22:09:12 GMT -8
I realize that everything points to the boss, but I'm curious about the view on the assistants. My recollection is that baseba1111 was very impressed with WT's assistant hires when those were announced. Rueck's assistants are given a lot of credit for the women's program's recruiting success and post player development. So why then is there not more examination here on our recruiting and player development on the assistants? Ultimately, that's on WT to change, although if feels unlikely to me that anything will change much this offseason (at least by WT letting someone go). In terms of strategy and execution, my impression is that much of this responsibility is on Kerry Rupp. Also, I do think the lack of depth creates a very difficult problem for enforcing execution - getting drubbed by playing lesser talent to make a point to your starters is not something you can do very often, particularly when people pay to watch games... and with the rate of kids transferring schools now, risking pushing a talented kid to want to go elsewhere is a fast way to the jobless coach list. My point is, there's good reason this job pays millions; it's extremely difficult. We saw CR have player deflections cost him his job, and WT's biggest threat to his employment is the same; so far he's been able to keep deflections to a level has been largely manageable, but it's resulted in very little depth, which also means very limited options to bench players not doing exactly what is asked, without serious risk of bad losses and devastating deflections. It makes you realize why Musselman and Altman's approach has been successful - if you can bring in enough high-caliber talent (via free agency in their case), you have the option to coach with a heavier hand. Altman has had lots of transfer-outs too, but has been able to backfill talent to keep the roster full enough to keep the pressure players justifying their PT. Meanwhile, we have starters who often didn't even justifying bench minutes.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Mar 18, 2019 5:11:26 GMT -8
Coaches are hired to do one thing and one thing only. To win games. Everything else is secondary. We shouldn't and can't keep somebody around because of the poor me who we going to get instead whine. If you accept mediocrity you get mediocrity or worse
|
|
|
Post by carlosdanger on Mar 18, 2019 5:39:24 GMT -8
Coaches are hired to do one thing and one thing only. To win games. Everything else is secondary. We shouldn't and can't keep somebody around because of the poor me who we going to get instead whine. If you accept mediocrity you get mediocrity or worse
"Who are we going to get instead" isn't really a whine, it is a realistic question. If you don't have a realistic answer to the question, you are setting yourself up for even more failure.
|
|
jbjam
Freshman
Posts: 127
|
Post by jbjam on Mar 18, 2019 6:43:34 GMT -8
Coaches are hired to do one thing and one thing only. To win games. Everything else is secondary. We shouldn't and can't keep somebody around because of the poor me who we going to get instead whine. If you accept mediocrity you get mediocrity or worse
"Who are we going to get instead" isn't really a whine, it is a realistic question. If you don't have a realistic answer to the question, you are setting yourself up for even more failure.
I personally don't feel making decisions out of fear is the best philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Mar 18, 2019 7:18:03 GMT -8
"Who are we going to get instead" isn't really a whine, it is a realistic question. If you don't have a realistic answer to the question, you are setting yourself up for even more failure.
I personally don't feel making decisions out of fear is the best philosophy. Can’t tell who that is directed at. Seems to me those who want to can the most successful coach in 30 years are just as fearful as those who don’t want to go back to the abyss. The key to me is, this team is improving. It may bore some fans, it may not be improving as fast as fans want, but it is improving. There shouldn’t be a firing unless the team is on a downhill slope or there is “cause”.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 18, 2019 8:16:46 GMT -8
"Who are we going to get instead" isn't really a whine, it is a realistic question. If you don't have a realistic answer to the question, you are setting yourself up for even more failure. I personally don't feel making decisions out of fear is the best philosophy. In argumentative discourse, the status quo is the correct decision, unless the person advocating change can carry the point. The person advocating change change has the burden to prove that change is the correct decision. Carlos is simply indicating that you cannot carry the point. Fear does not enter into it. Logically, keeping Wayne Tinkle is less costly and disruptive and will consume less time than the alternative decision. If you cannot set forward a superior alternative, you fail to carry your burden, and your argument fails on its own merits. Further, discretion is the better part of valor.
|
|