|
Post by beaverinohio on Feb 7, 2020 13:23:04 GMT -8
I think the disconnect among many on here is some like you feel getting rid of WT would be "change for the sake of change," while others who feel a change should be made whether after this year or after a coming year (assuming no big turnaround) feel it is warranted and not just for the sake of change. And I realize that what I post is not going to change your mind on the subject. We just look at this differently I suppose. But I did find your first paragraph interesting in that you say WT's Beavers have out performed 25 years of Beaver teams, but then say "OSU basketball history says firings are not a fix." Seems to me you just made the case for it -- unless unlike I thought CR retired or quit. As to your "ain't growing, you're dying" stance, we definitely have a different definition of growing. I'm assuming when you say the Beaver program was growing 4 out of 5 years that you are strictly looking at win/loss and thus the 5 win year was the only year the program wasn't growing. I think that is a bit disingenuous. So if the team had won 8 games in 2017-18 you would have counted that as growth? Or if the team had one less win in the year following the tourney bid but again went to the tourney that wouldn't be "growth"? I believe you have to look at things in total. It would have been very difficult for the Beavers not to win more games in 2017-18 than the previous year. But that "program growing" 2017-18 team didn't even make it back to the level of WT's first team (though close) and finished 10th in conference. So not really sure how that can be seen as growth except in the simplest terms. Then there is the whole recruiting and roster make up side of things. In his second year, WT brought in the conference's 5th ranked recruiting class (21st nationally) and got the team into the tourney. He has parlayed that into classes ranked 8, 9, 10, 9 in the conference. And yes, I know stars and ratings aren't everything, but I think most would have difficulty saying that is growth. I believe like many (some?) that WT's Beaver teams are for the most part an improvement over the previous 25 years if for no other reason than he was the coach for the tourney team. For that I thank WT. But like the year following his 5-win season, the bar for improvement wasn't very high. And making the NCAA tourney once shouldn't give you a lifetime job. Which brings me back to my original question. At what point does the argument "WT's Beavers have out performed about two and a half decades of Beaver teams" run out of steam if the team isn't "growing"? Theoretically, this year's team could finish with a better conference record than last year's, but I think even the most optimistic might find that out of reach. So let's say they go 5-3 the rest of the way (still pretty optimistic, but isn't that part of being a fan) and finish 8-10 in conference. Next year, even achieving that seems unlikely given that the last time the Beavers had a season without Tres they won 1 conference game (and that team had Stevie and Drew). But let's be optimistic again and say 7-11 in conference. That would mean at the end of next season, the team would be 5 years removed from a tourney bid and only 1 winning conference record. Is it OK then to start thinking about moving on from WT? Well one could say, how do you know how that is going to play out? I'm not, but I'd say that very well may be best case scenario. And to me that is depressing. I'd like to see an actual downward trend of a couple years or completely losing the team to where it's obviously spiraling downwards before firing the guy. Finishing 4th in the league and having 3 or 4 frustrating losses (so far) the following season is not a reason to can a guy. It needs to be revisited after the season. Robinson was fired, but I don't think it was his record, it was a matter of him totally losing the team at the end of his tenure. It was obvious it was time for him to move on. Thst could in theory happen to Tinkle, but it hasn't yet. Robinson's firing improved the team to a degree, didn't make it great. In my earlier post I said no firing had made OSU a great team. OSU has had their best successes with long term coaches, many didn't have great success until years into their tenure. I think we shouldn't fire a guy simply because they haven't achieved greatness, it should be because of failure to remain competitive. I'm not advocating for WT to be fired right now nor do I believe he'll be fired at the end of the year. I can't see him not getting at least one more year and likely at least two more. I'll be cheering for him to turn things around, I'm just not sure it will happen. But I'm not quite sure what your definition of "remain competitive" is. Is the scenario that I described above (finish 8-10 this year and 7-11 next year in conference) what you would consider competitive? If so, that would mean WT would have had 7 seasons and finished .500 or better in conference just twice. Just looking at the record then, I'd say it is time to move on. Now other things factor in. If next year, they look more consistent and you can see the younger players developing then that has to be considered. But if it is the same type of inconsistency and lack of fundamentals, then time to move on. Will that guarantee OSU being a great team? No. But, either does keeping a coach who after 7 seasons has a sub-.500 conference record guarantee he'll be the next Ralph Miller. Seven years is enough time to make progress. But enough of that, let's get a win on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 7, 2020 13:27:56 GMT -8
Zero to do with who could beat who. Wagner has zero conference tie in with the NIT.Stay focused... coaches salary... another poster thru out comparisons... I countered. NC SOS was listed... OSU is at 330+ You WT supporters are getting quite creative in avoiding the actual essence of the issue... coaching and recruiting acumen! The 39th highest paid D1 coach can't recruit, develop, or create a consistency in whatever you want to call his "system" to even be near .500 in Pac12 play. Let alone top 100 type finishes that at least get a NIT invite. Can't wait to hear the next comparisons, reasons, and excuses. Hopefully this team can get on a positive streak to get a NIT bid. As the "I told you so" BS will be far better reading than the excuses. That is incorrect. They got an automatic bid in the NIT in 2016 & 2018 since they won their conference, but lost in their conference tournament. For someone who "knows everything", you would think that you would know how the NIT has been operating for several years. They give every regular season conference champion an auto bid if they don't win their conference tourney or get an at-large NCAA bid. By the way, Wagner is 5-16 this year and they were 13-17 last year. Their coach is more on the hot seat than Tinkle. Read... "conference tie in". The conference itself has no specific deal with the NIT. The conference champion is for all and not automatic in all cases depending on the field available. For a guy who doesn't know everything you tend to prove it often!
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 7, 2020 13:30:43 GMT -8
That is incorrect. They got an automatic bid in the NIT in 2016 & 2018 since they won their conference, but lost in their conference tournament. For someone who "knows everything", you would think that you would know how the NIT has been operating for several years. They give every regular season conference champion an auto bid if they don't win their conference tourney or get an at-large NCAA bid. By the way, Wagner is 5-16 this year and they were 13-17 last year. Their coach is more on the hot seat than Tinkle. Read... "conference tie in". The conference itself has no specific deal with the NIT. The conference champion is for all and not automatic in all cases depending on the field available. For a guy who doesn't know everything you tend to prove it often! Wrong again. The NIT has an agreement with all conferences to do this. Keep backpedaling. Here's the section from their website: Automatic bids for the NIT are given to any team that is the regular-season champion of its conference but fails to earn a berth in March Madness. The rest of the field is determined, regardless of conference, after all 68 teams are selected for the NCAA tournament.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 7, 2020 13:39:38 GMT -8
Read... "conference tie in". The conference itself has no specific deal with the NIT. The conference champion is for all and not automatic in all cases depending on the field available. For a guy who doesn't know everything you tend to prove it often! The NIT has an agreement with all conferences to do this. Keep backpedaling. Here's the section from their website: Automatic bids for the NIT are given to any team that is the regular-season champion of its conference but fails to earn a berth in March Madness. The rest of the field is determined, regardless of conference, after all 68 teams are selected for the NCAA tournament. It's an agreement with the NCAA and the new selection process when the selection committee rules were changed as was the .500 record stipulation. NCAA is not a conference tie in like the Rose Bowl and Pac12. May be a bit too literal for you to understand. You seem to choose when specifics matter. But, you're much better with the simplistic, noninformative feedback based in sarcasm. Keep it up.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 7, 2020 13:43:27 GMT -8
The NIT has an agreement with all conferences to do this. Keep backpedaling. Here's the section from their website: Automatic bids for the NIT are given to any team that is the regular-season champion of its conference but fails to earn a berth in March Madness. The rest of the field is determined, regardless of conference, after all 68 teams are selected for the NCAA tournament. It's an agreement with the NCAA and the new selection process when the selection committee rules were changed as was the .500 record stipulation. NCAA is not a conference tie in like the Rose Bowl and Pac12. May be a bit too literal for you to understand. You seem to choose when specifics matter. But, you're much better with the simplistic, noninformative feedback based in sarcasm. Keep it up. You're much better at never admitting when you're wrong. In fact, I would say you are a professional. "It's an agreement with the NCAA"......which includes all of the conferences......keep grasping at straws....literally
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Feb 7, 2020 13:54:07 GMT -8
Now I want him fired just so you two shut up about this already.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 7, 2020 14:00:02 GMT -8
7/11, you really are dense.
The 39th highest paid D1 coach can't recruit, develop, or create a consistency in whatever you want to call his "system" to even be near .500 in Pac12 play. Let alone top 100 type finishes that at least get a NIT invite.
Could very well be. But he earns what he earns in a very large part because that's what Pac-12/P5 coaches with 10+ years of head-coaching experience and a moderate level of success - his peer group - gets paid. If the Wagner coach you love so much came to OSU, or Cal, or WSU, he's get a humongous raise and be paid on par with his Pac-12/P5 peers who have no head-coaching experience at that level.
People are paid on par with their peer group in every profession in the country. Still so hard to believe you don't comprehend this concept. Well, maybe not that hard ...
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 7, 2020 14:07:36 GMT -8
Now I want him fired just so you two shut up about this already. Before I finish, I would also like to suggest that Wagner change their mascot to the "power painters"
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Feb 21, 2020 11:32:36 GMT -8
Here is a starting shortish list. Some have obvious baggage. But I know for around $2.5M we don't have to look for someone from the Big Sky. - Gregg Marshall, Kelvin Sampson, Damon Stoudamire, Mike Rhoades, Brian Dutcher, Ben Jacobson, Michael Huger, Grant McCasland, Steve Forbes, Wes Miller, and Bob Richey.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 23, 2020 14:26:08 GMT -8
Thad Matta. He's only 51 or 52, may be ready to get back into coaching and we wouldn't have to pay anyone a buyout.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Feb 24, 2020 10:15:06 GMT -8
Matta turned down 16 million over 5 years from Georgia. He'd probably have to really want to come here to accept an offer here.
|
|
|
Post by beaversproud on Feb 24, 2020 10:19:29 GMT -8
get the coach from Utah State.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Feb 24, 2020 10:23:05 GMT -8
get the coach from Utah State. I don't know who that is but I just cringed seeing the words "coach" and "Utah State" together...
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 24, 2020 10:31:26 GMT -8
Matta turned down 16 million over 5 years from Georgia. He'd probably have to really want to come here to accept an offer here. He said he was not ready to return to coaching at that time. Maybe in March he will be, although I'm certain WT isn't going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by shelby on Feb 24, 2020 11:24:06 GMT -8
I am as disappointed as anyone in what has been accomplished with Beaver basketball - seems like, for an eternity. I do , however, see some promising building blocks for next year and would like to see these athletes, combined with a great recruiting class - devoid of coaches sons ( except for Ethan ), perform next year before we move on . Lucas looks loaded with promise , Tucker looks like he should have been getting more playing time, and Reichle has really become more effective. I don't care for Tinkles coaching style but maybe that was hampered by his handling of court time for the 'sons' ? Do not understand his substitutions, time outs, or basic offense - too many passes that end up in being a late clock one on one and forced shot ! Basically, I would go one more year to see what he can do under different circumstances !
|
|