|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 20, 2020 13:25:07 GMT -8
Robinson and his staff were given the vote of confidence by the AD at the end of the season. A month later he and his staff were let go. The assistant coaches were really mad because they were whipsawed by Bobby D and made it difficult to get into the hiring cycle so late in the process. They took their gripes to the president, who agreed with them that this was not the way to treat OSU employees.
Howland wanted the OSU job but we hired Tinkle instead. Howland was out of work for a season before Mississippi State hired him. He took over a program that had only experienced modest success and had never had the historical success of OSU. He is doing a good job and has the program on an upward progression with an NIT and an NCAA appearance so far in five seasons. He and Tinkle are earning about the same salary.
OSU had a great stretch in the 80's but outside of that really hasn't had great near term historical success. In the 24 seasons prior to Tinkle's hire OSU went to the NIT once, Mississippi State went to the NCAAs 9 times and NIT 6 times. Pretty much all of both coaches' recruits were too young to remember OSU being nothing but a crappy basketball school. I'd say Howland had a huge advantage at Mississippi State on that front. Posters bring up our great history or pedigree. That's great for us old people, but as far as recruiting teenagers goes it likely does nothing. In their lives OSU was not a basketball school that would be a great place to be a star at.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 20, 2020 13:29:55 GMT -8
Every topic or coach had/has a huge advantage over OSU/WT... no matter the obvious and results the excusers will find a reason.
Let's just hope some Ws of significance show up soon as the admin seems to be of the same mindset.
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Jan 20, 2020 13:43:01 GMT -8
Robinson and his staff were given the vote of confidence by the AD at the end of the season. A month later he and his staff were let go. The assistant coaches were really mad because they were whipsawed by Bobby D and made it difficult to get into the hiring cycle so late in the process. They took their gripes to the president, who agreed with them that this was not the way to treat OSU employees.
Howland wanted the OSU job but we hired Tinkle instead. Howland was out of work for a season before Mississippi State hired him. He took over a program that had only experienced modest success and had never had the historical success of OSU. He is doing a good job and has the program on an upward progression with an NIT and an NCAA appearance so far in five seasons. He and Tinkle are earning about the same salary.
OSU had a great stretch in the 80's but outside of that really hasn't had great near term historical success. In the 24 seasons prior to Tinkle's hire OSU went to the NIT once, Mississippi State went to the NCAAs 9 times and NIT 6 times. Pretty much all of both coaches' recruits were too young to remember OSU being nothing but a crappy basketball school. I'd say Howland had a huge advantage at Mississippi State on that front. Posters bring up our great history or pedigree. That's great for us old people, but as far as recruiting teenagers goes it likely does nothing. In their lives OSU was not a basketball school that would be a great place to be a star at. This is simply not true. Gill had a 0.604 winning percentage over 36 seasons prior to the 1980s and a final four appearance. Miller won 66% of his games in the 1970s and 80s.
Howland did have a huge advantage as you say - he's a better coach and recruiter than Tinkle. OSU has hired six MBB coaches that have not been successful since the retirement of Ralph Miller. Five have been fired to date. Yet not one AD has been fired for making poor choices.
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Jan 20, 2020 14:04:01 GMT -8
This is pretty easy to pick apart in hindsight, but were there really a lot of people upset with WT getting hired back in 2014?
Maybe there were more people who hated the hire back then than I realized.. But I felt like people generally were fine with it - wasn't a big name hire, but he was likable, appeared to be an improvement over Robinson, presumably knew the NW a little bit and seemed to be on an upward trajectory based on his Montana success.
I always assumed it was between Damon Stoudamire and WT down the stretch. I liked the idea of Stoudamire, but had no idea if he could actually coach (which - yeah, that's important) and felt like he needed a mid major job first.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 20, 2020 14:08:43 GMT -8
OSU had a great stretch in the 80's but outside of that really hasn't had great near term historical success. In the 24 seasons prior to Tinkle's hire OSU went to the NIT once, Mississippi State went to the NCAAs 9 times and NIT 6 times. Pretty much all of both coaches' recruits were too young to remember OSU being nothing but a crappy basketball school. I'd say Howland had a huge advantage at Mississippi State on that front. Posters bring up our great history or pedigree. That's great for us old people, but as far as recruiting teenagers goes it likely does nothing. In their lives OSU was not a basketball school that would be a great place to be a star at. This is simply not true. Gill had a 0.604 winning percentage over 36 seasons prior to the 1980s and a final four appearance. Miller won 66% of his games in the 1970s and 80s.
Howland did have a huge advantage as you say - he's a better coach and recruiter than Tinkle. OSU has hired six MBB coaches that have not been successful since the retirement of Ralph Miller. Five have been fired to date. Yet not one AD has been fired for making poor choices.
I said near term. I do not think of seasons that occurred before our recruits' parents were born as near term. I'm thinking it's not compltely the coaching to blame at this point, it's the culture. Laying blame at past ADs is much more realistic. The current AD came into a hornet's nest, I'd give him 2 extra years before lumping him into the group with the earlier ADs, he's had a lot to fix up. With the exception of Gary Anderson, OSU has always taken the cheap/easy way out when hiring coaches for football and basketball since the mid 70's at least. Mike Riley was hired on the cheap, DE was hired on the really really cheap, Mike Riley was hired again on the cheap, Jonathan was hired on the cheap (around 800k a year cheaper than GA was earning?), Jim Andersen was an easy hire (not sure how his pay compared, it was before the time I followed such things), Tinkle was hired at 800k to begin, right at the bottom of the league in pretty much every case. Gotta admit I don't know what OSU ponied up for the other BB coaches but I suspect it was lowball at the time). I kinda wonder if any of the the coaches they hired would have been hired if they had demanded the going rate for hires in the PAC 10/12.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 20, 2020 14:19:37 GMT -8
This is pretty easy to pick apart in hindsight, but were there really a lot of people upset with WT getting hired back in 2014? Maybe there were more people who hated the hire back then than I realized.. But I felt like people generally were fine with it - wasn't a big name hire, but he was likable, appeared to be an improvement over Robinson, presumably knew the NW a little bit and seemed to be on an upward trajectory based on his Montana success. I always assumed it was between Damon Stoudamire and WT down the stretch. I liked the idea of Stoudamire, but had no idea if he could actually coach (which - yeah, that's important) and felt like he needed a mid major job first. Heck, most people loved the Wayne Tinkle hire up until the day Tres got hurt in season 3. That one season is responsible for most of the can Wayne Tinkle explanations on the board (win/loss record). Tinkle only had one class with any playing experience coming into that season. There were zero Robinson recruits and Wayne apparently chose not to bring one and dones. That season was destined to suck.
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Jan 20, 2020 14:25:38 GMT -8
This is simply not true. Gill had a 0.604 winning percentage over 36 seasons prior to the 1980s and a final four appearance. Miller won 66% of his games in the 1970s and 80s.
Howland did have a huge advantage as you say - he's a better coach and recruiter than Tinkle. OSU has hired six MBB coaches that have not been successful since the retirement of Ralph Miller. Five have been fired to date. Yet not one AD has been fired for making poor choices.
I said near term. I do not think of seasons that occurred before our recruits' parents were born as near term. I'm thinking it's not compltely the coaching to blame at this point, it's the culture. Laying blame at past ADs is much more realistic. The current AD came into a hornet's nest, I'd give him 2 extra years before lumping him into the group with the earlier ADs, he's had a lot to fix up. With the exception of Gary Anderson, OSU has always taken the cheap/easy way out when hiring coaches for football and basketball since the mid 70's at least. Mike Riley was hired on the cheap, DE was hired on the really really cheap, Mike Riley was hired again on the cheap, Jonathan was hired on the cheap (around 800k a year cheaper than GA was earning?), Jim Andersen was an easy hire (not sure how his pay compared, it was before the time I followed such things), Tinkle was hired at 800k to begin, right at the bottom of the league in pretty much every case. Gotta admit I don't know what OSU ponied up for the other BB coaches but I suspect it was lowball at the time). I kinda wonder if any of the the coaches they hired would have been hired if they had demanded the going rate for hires in the PAC 10/12. I agree for the most part with what you're saying. It's our fault for letting the AD(s) get away with short-changing OSU.
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Jan 20, 2020 14:26:37 GMT -8
Robinson and his staff were given the vote of confidence by the AD at the end of the season. A month later he and his staff were let go. The assistant coaches were really mad because they were whipsawed by Bobby D and made it difficult to get into the hiring cycle so late in the process. They took their gripes to the president, who agreed with them that this was not the way to treat OSU employees.
Howland wanted the OSU job but we hired Tinkle instead. Howland was out of work for a season before Mississippi State hired him. He took over a program that had only experienced modest success and had never had the historical success of OSU. He is doing a good job and has the program on an upward progression with an NIT and an NCAA appearance so far in five seasons. He and Tinkle are earning about the same salary.
OSU had a great stretch in the 80's but outside of that really hasn't had great near term historical success. In the 24 seasons prior to Tinkle's hire OSU went to the NIT once, Mississippi State went to the NCAAs 9 times and NIT 6 times. Pretty much all of both coaches' recruits were too young to remember OSU being nothing but a crappy basketball school. I'd say Howland had a huge advantage at Mississippi State on that front. Posters bring up our great history or pedigree. That's great for us old people, but as far as recruiting teenagers goes it likely does nothing. In their lives OSU was not a basketball school that would be a great place to be a star at. As fans we remember the great teams, but you are right these kids don't. It might be slightly better if Oregon produced a good amount of top talent and they at least heard their parents talking about the great days, but that doesn't seem to be the case and the best ones end up somewhere else. And therein lies the problem with WT. To reach these kids and sell them on Oregon St., you have to have a vision and be able to articulate that vision to these kids to get them to sign on. I just don't see that vision or identity A coach has to be able to say to and show a recruit this is what I envision for the team during your 4 years and this is how we're going to get there -- pressure defense, fast break offense, heck even taking all our shots from 45 feet out just so there is a vision and identity, and here is how playing at Oregon St. will improve your game and chances for a professional basketball career. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he's doing some of that or maybe all of that, but not in a compelling way because players aren't coming and the ones that do don't seem to be developing as we'd hope. In the Realistic Expectations thread, someone mentioned Northwestern as a team that was as bad as the Beavers have been of late. I actually think Rutgers is a better comparison or at least shows what can happen when you hire a coach with a vision who can recruit. Steve Pikiell came from the basketball powerhouse known as Stony Brook. In his last 7 years there he took the team to 3 NIT, 2 CBI and their 1st NCAA appearance in his final year. He was hired by Rutgers that had not finished above .500 since the 2005-06 season and were 29-68 in their last three seasons (7-25 in season before Pikiell arrived). His first recruiting class was not surprisingly poor (247 cumulative recruit rating of .8382), but the recruiting has improved -- .8671 to .8951 to .9232. Oregon State's cumulative recruit rankings during that time have been .8905, .9099 and then last two season .8537 and .8556. Under Pikiell, Rutgers went 15-17, 15-19 and 14-17 -- and conference wins were 3, 3 and 7 last year. This year Rutgers just moved into the top 25 this week with a 14-4 record and 5-2 in the B1G. Pikiell's identity for Rutgers -- rebounding and defense. They've consistently been a very good rebounding team since he's arrived, but it's taken awhile for him to get and develop the players he needed to fully get the defense running. This year he has that and their defense is eighth-best in the nation according to Kenpom. And for those who say Rutgers is on east coast, it's easier. Rutgers is not a destination school. Yes, they're in the B1G, but Oregon St. is in the Pac-12 -- so both power conferences. And Rutgers performance when today's recruits were growing up was terrible. Yet, Pikiell has managed to move the team forward by leaps and bounds.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 20, 2020 14:31:40 GMT -8
This is pretty easy to pick apart in hindsight, but were there really a lot of people upset with WT getting hired back in 2014? Maybe there were more people who hated the hire back then than I realized.. But I felt like people generally were fine with it - wasn't a big name hire, but he was likable, appeared to be an improvement over Robinson, presumably knew the NW a little bit and seemed to be on an upward trajectory based on his Montana success. I always assumed it was between Damon Stoudamire and WT down the stretch. I liked the idea of Stoudamire, but had no idea if he could actually coach (which - yeah, that's important) and felt like he needed a mid major job first. Heck, most people loved the Wayne Tinkle hire up until the day Tres got hurt in season 3. That one season is responsible for most of the can Wayne Tinkle explanations on the board (win/loss record). Tinkle only had one class with any playing experience coming into that season. There were zero Robinson recruits and Wayne apparently chose not to bring one and dones. That season was destined to suck. Again... do not true! Folks inside and outside were tired of the cheap fix. WT did not have the pedigree a lot of the people desired. And, attendance showed that. Overall "fairweather fan" showed up with wins. But, overall support did not jibe with what you say even after the tourney season. Year 3 just showed how empty the recruiting classes were after two full opportunities. Ask the AD how much the season tix DIDN'T jump to any significant level... after a dance appearance nor after the oft mentioned 4th place Pac12 finish.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 20, 2020 14:52:25 GMT -8
Robinson and his staff were given the vote of confidence by the AD at the end of the season. A month later he and his staff were let go. The assistant coaches were really mad because they were whipsawed by Bobby D and made it difficult to get into the hiring cycle so late in the process. They took their gripes to the president, who agreed with them that this was not the way to treat OSU employees.
Howland wanted the OSU job but we hired Tinkle instead. Howland was out of work for a season before Mississippi State hired him. He took over a program that had only experienced modest success and had never had the historical success of OSU. He is doing a good job and has the program on an upward progression with an NIT and an NCAA appearance so far in five seasons. He and Tinkle are earning about the same salary.
The story Howland wanted double the salary was and is false! He very much wanted to be on the West Coast and in the Pac12. I am not sure of the true defining moment in the hiring process, but Howland was not seen as "personable", but folks from the AD said in no way was he the arrogant arse he is painted to be. His recruiting and success so far in a very deep 14 team conference is impressive for a school without much of a hoop pedigree. Howland wanted 2 million. We hired WT for 800 thousand. That is true no matter what you think. He also wanted a lot more $$ for assistants.
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Jan 20, 2020 15:25:17 GMT -8
Six years later, Howland is earning $2.2 million while Tinkle is earning $2.0 million. There's some irony in that both men are listed next to each other in the table.
|
|
|
Post by osubeaver2018 on Jan 20, 2020 15:29:22 GMT -8
Six years later, Howland is earning $2.2 million while Tinkle is earning $2.0 million. There's some irony in that both men are listed next to each other in the table.
Howland's buyout at $0 and WT at almost $6.8M too.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jan 20, 2020 16:12:09 GMT -8
You can’t criticize a guy for hiring Tinkle. He hasn’t been terrible for the program. He injected spirit into the program immediately with a Herculean task of using primarily walk-ons. I don’t know what has happened since then. Perhaps too many sons in the program has kept him from focusing on the “team” aspect of basketball. I dunno. But I wouldn’t say he was a bad hire.
I’d like to see him coach again without kids in the program. Make my judgment from there.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 20, 2020 16:24:50 GMT -8
OSU had a great stretch in the 80's but outside of that really hasn't had great near term historical success. In the 24 seasons prior to Tinkle's hire OSU went to the NIT once, Mississippi State went to the NCAAs 9 times and NIT 6 times. Pretty much all of both coaches' recruits were too young to remember OSU being nothing but a crappy basketball school. I'd say Howland had a huge advantage at Mississippi State on that front. Posters bring up our great history or pedigree. That's great for us old people, but as far as recruiting teenagers goes it likely does nothing. In their lives OSU was not a basketball school that would be a great place to be a star at. As fans we remember the great teams, but you are right these kids don't. It might be slightly better if Oregon produced a good amount of top talent and they at least heard their parents talking about the great days, but that doesn't seem to be the case and the best ones end up somewhere else. And therein lies the problem with WT. To reach these kids and sell them on Oregon St., you have to have a vision and be able to articulate that vision to these kids to get them to sign on. I just don't see that vision or identity A coach has to be able to say to and show a recruit this is what I envision for the team during your 4 years and this is how we're going to get there -- pressure defense, fast break offense, heck even taking all our shots from 45 feet out just so there is a vision and identity, and here is how playing at Oregon St. will improve your game and chances for a professional basketball career. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he's doing some of that or maybe all of that, but not in a compelling way because players aren't coming and the ones that do don't seem to be developing as we'd hope. In the Realistic Expectations thread, someone mentioned Northwestern as a team that was as bad as the Beavers have been of late. I actually think Rutgers is a better comparison or at least shows what can happen when you hire a coach with a vision who can recruit. Steve Pikiell came from the basketball powerhouse known as Stony Brook. In his last 7 years there he took the team to 3 NIT, 2 CBI and their 1st NCAA appearance in his final year. He was hired by Rutgers that had not finished above .500 since the 2005-06 season and were 29-68 in their last three seasons (7-25 in season before Pikiell arrived). His first recruiting class was not surprisingly poor (247 cumulative recruit rating of .8382), but the recruiting has improved -- .8671 to .8951 to .9232. Oregon State's cumulative recruit rankings during that time have been .8905, .9099 and then last two season .8537 and .8556. Under Pikiell, Rutgers went 15-17, 15-19 and 14-17 -- and conference wins were 3, 3 and 7 last year. This year Rutgers just moved into the top 25 this week with a 14-4 record and 5-2 in the B1G. Pikiell's identity for Rutgers -- rebounding and defense. They've consistently been a very good rebounding team since he's arrived, but it's taken awhile for him to get and develop the players he needed to fully get the defense running. This year he has that and their defense is eighth-best in the nation according to Kenpom. And for those who say Rutgers is on east coast, it's easier. Rutgers is not a destination school. Yes, they're in the B1G, but Oregon St. is in the Pac-12 -- so both power conferences. And Rutgers performance when today's recruits were growing up was terrible. Yet, Pikiell has managed to move the team forward by leaps and bounds. This should be Rutgers first winning season since 2006, and they still might not win as many games this season as OSU does... the season isn't over yet. Tinkle got winning seasons out of Robinson's bench players the first season. Hopefully for Rutgers their 13 years of futility won't match our 24 years.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jan 20, 2020 18:43:22 GMT -8
You can’t criticize a guy for hiring Tinkle. He hasn’t been terrible for the program. He injected spirit into the program immediately with a Herculean task of using primarily walk-ons. I don’t know what has happened since then. Perhaps too many sons in the program has kept him from focusing on the “team” aspect of basketball. I dunno. But I wouldn’t say he was a bad hire. I’d like to see him coach again without kids in the program. Make my judgment from there. I've been wanting to see Tinkle coaching without family myself, but I'm feeling a strong, "Be careful what you wish for" feeling right now. Our next year's roster, with the exception of Thompson (should he return), includes only two guys that averaged over 5 pts/game, Reichle at 8.6 (been happy to see his contributions this year) and Hollins at 6.1. Silva is our top big man. Everyone else looks like they are freshmen who simply are not ready.
|
|