|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 31, 2020 10:48:33 GMT -8
Greta would still get a degree from Stanford even if she sits on the bench the whole time. Even with orange glasses fully on, that alone is a very tough hurdle to overcome any recruit that cares at all about life beyond basketball. True... she does get a degree from Furd, if she actually stayed but I know tons of kids who have gone to "less prestigious" schools to "play" and get a degree. And, if you read the research, in very few situations does the college matter in overall earnings and job security. Several economists have done studies over 20+ years to show that... "Today, whether you go to college retains some importance in your employment options, depending of your goals and occupation. But where you go to college is of almost no importance. Whether your degree, for example, is from UCLA or from less prestigious Sonoma State matters far less than your academic performance and the skills you can show employers. Research on the impact of college selection has focused on comparing the earnings of graduates of different colleges. In 1999, economists Alan Krueger and Stacy Berg Dale published a widely read study that compared the earnings of graduates of elite colleges with those of “moderately selective” schools. The latter group was composed of people who had been admitted to an elite college but chose to attend another school. The economists found that the earnings of the two groups 20 years after graduation differed little or not at all." So, I guess my point is that if a student choses a school over another is it "beating them out"? To some who see OSU as inferior and need the win... great. But, picking a school that a kid likes... better weather, degree choices, or increased chance for playing time to me isn't beating someone. If you want to go that route, was Greta even offered by Furd (Furd site states none was made before her commit to OSU... but what do fan sites know?!)? Could they still and she switch? |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Mar 31, 2020 10:49:38 GMT -8
My head is spinning. You say PT and a bench of talented players affects recruits decision to not go there and then you say they recruit 3-4+ 5 star players each year. What? Stanford was interested in a great guard and so was OSU and we got her. Celebration for us beating out Stanford for a great player. Hopefully 2021 is our best recruiting class ever!! If that is the case, Stanford will sign zero guards in 2021. Our chances with von Oelhoffen just went way up, since she will be far too concerned with PT and the talent at Stanford to choose there! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 31, 2020 10:52:34 GMT -8
LOL... so PT and a huge roster of talented recruits/commits doesn't matter to where a kid signs? Really? Furd has about 15 "long term, high priorities" every year and get 3-4+. They already have solid interest in 5 of the top 8 for 2022. Didn't matter for Van Lith. She could have chosen OSU where she likely would have started/contended for a starting spot from day 1, but instead, she chose Louisville, which will have a full roster of 15 players, including the reigning ACC POY Dana Evans at PG, most of which were 5-stars or McDonald's All-Americans. Stanford needs to sign off-guards in 2021, which is why they targeted Kampschroeder, Citron, Ducharme, and von Oelhoffen. What does Van Lith have to do with this? She was offered by Louisville... her choice was from multiple offers. There is zero evidence Greta had a Furd offer... just a visit. Tara has a plethora of highly rated options and no need to offer early unless she really wants a player. Supposes (2) '21 offers out, but not to Greta. Which was my point... although lost in my mistake of which years... is it really beating someone out IF they never offered a scholly? If so... then we've beat Furd, Baylor, UConn, ND, Louisville, SCar, Miss St for every recruit we have ever gotten. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 31, 2020 10:54:30 GMT -8
My head is spinning. You say PT and a bench of talented players affects recruits decision to not go there and then you say they recruit 3-4+ 5 star players each year. What? Stanford was interested in a great guard and so was OSU and we got her. Celebration for us beating out Stanford for a great player. Hopefully 2021 is our best recruiting class ever!! Do you only think in absolutes? "affects"... not determines. Each player has their own process... and to some PT matters. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Mar 31, 2020 10:54:33 GMT -8
Greta would still get a degree from Stanford even if she sits on the bench the whole time. Even with orange glasses fully on, that alone is a very tough hurdle to overcome any recruit that cares at all about life beyond basketball. True... she does get a degree from Furd, if she actually stayed but I know tons of kids who have gone to "less prestigious" schools to "play" and get a degree. And, if you read the research, in very few situations does the college matter in overall earnings and job security. Several economists have done studies over 20+ years to show that... "Today, whether you go to college retains some importance in your employment options, depending of your goals and occupation. But where you go to college is of almost no importance. Whether your degree, for example, is from UCLA or from less prestigious Sonoma State matters far less than your academic performance and the skills you can show employers. Research on the impact of college selection has focused on comparing the earnings of graduates of different colleges. In 1999, economists Alan Krueger and Stacy Berg Dale published a widely read study that compared the earnings of graduates of elite colleges with those of “moderately selective” schools. The latter group was composed of people who had been admitted to an elite college but chose to attend another school. The economists found that the earnings of the two groups 20 years after graduation differed little or not at all." So, I guess my point is that if a student choses a school over another is it "beating them out"? To some who see OSU as inferior and need the win... great. But, picking a school that a kid likes... better weather, degree choices, or increased chance for playing time to me isn't beating someone. If you want to go that route, was Greta even offered by Furd (Furd site states none was made before her commit to OSU... but what do fan sites know?!)? Could they still and she switch? Beating someone out is just the generic term used when someone chooses a school over others. For example, we beat out Stanford and Iowa among many others for Greta. Last year, Stanford beat out Oregon, UConn, and others for Haley Jones. Also, Greta, like many others, do not post offers. Verhulst and von Oelhoffen don't either. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Mar 31, 2020 10:58:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Mar 31, 2020 11:00:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Mar 31, 2020 11:17:41 GMT -8
All I care about is that we have a commit from a really outstanding player who is a perfect fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 31, 2020 11:31:00 GMT -8
All I care about is that we have a commit from a really outstanding player who is a perfect fit. Need a true, 5'7'-5'8", quick as s%#te, shoot a 3, PG now |
|
|
|
Post by shelby on Mar 31, 2020 11:38:47 GMT -8
Wish aari McDonald would transfer! I agree on the need - Destiny has pretty good speed but needs to economize on her dribbling and either feed someone or shoot quicker.
|
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Mar 31, 2020 11:42:35 GMT -8
All I care about is that we have a commit from a really outstanding player who is a perfect fit. Need a true, 5'7'-5'8", quick as s%#te, shoot a 3, PG now Very true. Rueck has used actual combo guards at the point quite successfully, but a true, quick point sure solves some related problems. |
|
|
|
Post by newduke2 on Mar 31, 2020 11:53:06 GMT -8
Nonsense. It's nice to say OSU "beat out" Stanford because they did. She was a long term, high priority recruit of theirs. LOL... so PT and a huge roster of talented recruits/commits doesn't matter to where a kid signs? Really? Furd has about 15 "long term, high priorities" every year and get 3-4+. They already have solid interest in 5 of the top 8 for 2022. You must be a mind reader or you had a personal conservation with her on the topic of her college choice to know that PT was THE overriding, most influential, critical factor in her decision to pick OSU over Stanford. Not buying it. You virtually dismiss all else. For all we know she had a list of 5, 10 or even 15 factors that she weighed carefully in her decision. Academics? Nadda, she picked a "lesser" school over Stanford (well, as you say, where one gets a degree is not so important). Coaching? No. Not discussed by you...must not as important as PT. Family atmosphere? (This IS a prime reason she gives for her choice of OSU...but you ignore this...because, after all, it was PT that was the most important thing, right?) Location? No, not discussed by you...(well, this can't begin to compare to PT). Friendships? No. She couldn't possibly weigh this higher, than say, PT now could she?). Chances of winning championships? Stanford vs. Oregon State? Well, chances are better at Stanford...yet she chose OSU...Odd, must not be an overriding factor, not like, say PT. There may have been other factors on her list as well. SO, YOUR CONCLUSION: OSU did not win a recruiting battle against Stanford because PT played such a huge role, as you profess to know, with no uncertainty. In other words, we really can't credit OSU with a recruiting win so long as PT is the story. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 31, 2020 11:58:32 GMT -8
LOL... so PT and a huge roster of talented recruits/commits doesn't matter to where a kid signs? Really? Furd has about 15 "long term, high priorities" every year and get 3-4+. They already have solid interest in 5 of the top 8 for 2022. You must be a mind reader or you had a personal conservation with her on the topic of her college choice to know that PT was THE overriding, most influential, critical factor in her decision to pick OSU over Stanford. Not buying it. You virtually dismiss all else. For all we know she had a list of 5, 10 or even 15 factors that she weighed carefully in her decision. Academics? Nadda, she picked a "lesser" school over Stanford (well, as you say, where one gets a degree is not so important). Coaching? No. Not discussed by you...must not as important as PT. Family atmosphere? (This IS a prime reason she gives for her choice of OSU...but you ignore this...because, after all, it was PT that was the most important thing, right?) Location? No, not discussed by you...(well, this can't begin to compare to PT). Friendships? No. She couldn't possibly weigh this higher, than say, PT now could she?). Chances of winning championships? Stanford vs. Oregon State? Well, chances are better at Stanford...yet she chose OSU...Odd, must not be an overriding factor, not like, say PT. There may have been other factors on her list as well. SO, YOUR CONCLUSION: OSU did not win a recruiting battle against Stanford because PT played such a huge role, as you profess to know, with no uncertainty. In other words, we really can't credit OSU with a recruiting win so long as PT is the story. Blah blah blah... you have a real issue with over interpretation! Lol Almost all of your post is complete BS. Do really no point in going thru it step by step. But glad you had a chance to vent! Lol |
|
|
|
Post by newduke2 on Mar 31, 2020 12:25:24 GMT -8
You must be a mind reader or you had a personal conservation with her on the topic of her college choice to know that PT was THE overriding, most influential, critical factor in her decision to pick OSU over Stanford. Not buying it. You virtually dismiss all else. For all we know she had a list of 5, 10 or even 15 factors that she weighed carefully in her decision. Academics? Nadda, she picked a "lesser" school over Stanford (well, as you say, where one gets a degree is not so important). Coaching? No. Not discussed by you...must not as important as PT. Family atmosphere? (This IS a prime reason she gives for her choice of OSU...but you ignore this...because, after all, it was PT that was the most important thing, right?) Location? No, not discussed by you...(well, this can't begin to compare to PT). Friendships? No. She couldn't possibly weigh this higher, than say, PT now could she?). Chances of winning championships? Stanford vs. Oregon State? Well, chances are better at Stanford...yet she chose OSU...Odd, must not be an overriding factor, not like, say PT. There may have been other factors on her list as well. SO, YOUR CONCLUSION: OSU did not win a recruiting battle against Stanford because PT played such a huge role, as you profess to know, with no uncertainty. In other words, we really can't credit OSU with a recruiting win so long as PT is the story. Blah blah blah... you have a real issue with over interpretation! Lol Almost all of your post is complete BS. Do really no point in going thru it step by step. But glad you had a chance to vent! Lol You wouldn't know real BS if it bit you back in the rear end. After all, lots of your posts are full of it. But I digress. You are welcome to have the last word...children need it that way. |
|
billsaab
Freshman
Retired. Live in SW Washington on 73/4 Acres.
Posts: 589 
|
Post by billsaab on Mar 31, 2020 12:40:14 GMT -8
Why can't You guys just be happy we goy Her? Who gives a rip about Stanford or Oregon for that matter.? You guys create a discussion when none is necessary. I should have stopped reading Two pages ago.
|
|
