|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 22, 2022 13:35:16 GMT -8
So, do you truly think more $$ makes a coach a better recruiter? Your attachment shows it didnt. Cal spent $60k more did it result in a significantly better class? Looking at years I could easily find, 2018, 2019 (your doc) Wisconsin spends half of what OSU did in 2019. But still out recruited OSU. Houston same. Colorado, SD St, Auburn, Memphis the same. UCLA spent $11k more in 2019. The budget is spent on expenses for recruits, staff, and office. More money doesn't attract better players. The coach and his program do that. I'm thinking more in home visits, or more coaches on the same in home visits, can really show a recruit he's wanted. I have seen occasional reports of teams sending entire staffs to players. That takes money. This is just 1 example. Year after year there are articles like this one with the Beavers spending at or near the bottom of the Pac 12 or all Power 5 teams. Do you think that Tinkle's gone to the AD and insisted on doing everything on the cheap? Cal spent 35/40% more and didn't get a better class? Maybe Tinkle IS a better recruiter than you give him credit for. UCLA can show recruits a wall of National Championships and NCAA Tourneys, they have a history we don't have... add to that they are IN a recruiting hotbed. If it were safe the coaches could literally ride their bikes and have access to way more recruits our coaches have to fly to than our coaches can visit locally... UCLA can save tons of travel money. OSU is really out in the boonies when it comes to distance from large numbers of recruits, that costs money. On any given year OSU is close enough to a handful of Power 5 prospects that might be able to attend a game on their own, the big city teams are within dozens to hundreds, that's an advantage. The majority of the teams you mentioned are in huge metropolitan areas, that's an advantage. I am not suggesting giving recruits money. I am not suggesting showing recruits a visible pile of money. I'm suggesting increasing the budget to cover the expenses you mentioned, in many cases our potential expenses are higher than most of those other teams simply because of location. Year after year of a small budget can influence long term success in recruiting. Others have pointed out that OSU's overall budget has been lower than most of our competition long term. It's not just the salary of the head coach, it's everything, and while you are bitching about recruiting perhaps investing enough to put OSU at the same level of the competition (perhaps even a little higher) would be a relatively inexpensive start ... and that's a LOT cheaper than a buyout. The team 40 minutes to our south spent roughly double to what we spent on recruiting in '19 alone. I'd bet that's a yearly thing, and frankly it wouldn't be too expensive to match it. I just don't get how people expect top half of ghe league results year in and year out when OSU's basketbsll budget (not just recruiting) is at or near the bottom of the league year in and year out. You avoided the question with a long winded obfuscation. WT is NOT a even average recruiter for a P5 HC. The facts show it. Again, more in-homes would be to the same level of recruit he visits now. Fans expect better because he's been terrible in Pac12 play. And only a weak NC schedule has allowed him to stay barely over .500. More $$ for recruiting in WT's case is tossing $$ out the window. We get it, you support WT. No matter the recruiting level, no matter the portal failures, no matter the constant lack to keep HS recruits (long before the portal was so huge), no matter the consistent stories of favoritism and poor team chemistry, no matter the two worst records in OSU/Pac12 history... you'll find some reason or excuse for his failures. We get it. But, there is no correlating more recruiting $$ to a coach's improved recruiting. What is proven... in 8 seasons WT has done nothing to improve OSU's image in the eyes of HS coaches and recruits. Money doesn't change that. Scary thing... not even an E8 or the previous 1st Rd loss helped him. I not attempting to change your mind. Nor will you change mine. But, I find it curious you continually attempt to find excuses for his ineptitude. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on May 22, 2022 14:01:19 GMT -8
That is where I’m at with this discussion. If someone honestly believes that WT’s only shortcoming as a HC is his recruiting, and they believe the main reason for his recruiting shortfalls are because of having a smaller recruiting budget, then continuing the discussion is a waste of my and his time.
I do find it interesting that he keeps saying top half of conference “year in and year out.” Sure everyone would love that, but I think most people don’t expect it as he says. Even most of the best programs have a bad year here and there. But 3 years finishing in the 4-6 conference spot in 8 years with just as many bottom 3 finishes isn’t a bad year here and there.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on May 22, 2022 14:12:10 GMT -8
So
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on May 22, 2022 15:00:01 GMT -8
So perhaps we should define horrible records. I personally feel Tinkle has had 2 horrible seasons.
Since Tinkle arrived only three teams (Colorado, oregon, Arizona) haven't had seasons with fewer than 7 league wins.
Tinkle has had fewer than 7 league wins twice.
Utah- Once
Stanford- Once
USC- Once
ASU- Once
UW- Four times
Cal- Four times
WSU- Five times
At least we've not had the records those last 3 teams had.
I will forever maintain that the first horrible season is hard to hold against Tinkle. Even rgeorge has said that one of Tinkle’s main faults is the inability to keep classes together for multiple years to develop and it takes a few years to build a good team (I actually agree) - well, Tinkle only had 1 class of recruits that played before that season, and for one reason or another NONE of the previous coach's recruits were even around other than the oft-injured N'Diaye. This season was ALL on Tinkle’s recruiting.
I've had my disappointments in Tinkle’s recruiting, player retention and lack of offensive identity on a number of occasions (the second half of last season was the only time I thought the team showed much of a decent offensive scheme), but I also realize OSU has traditionally (last 30 years) not given men's basketball as much support as it needs to be a good team.
I feel this last season is all on Tinkle but the previous year bought him a year. A repeat of last year gets him canned. Progress probably buys him more time.
OSU has apparently long been at or near the bottom of the league in basketball budgets. Jumping into changing coaches without that being changed likely will lead to continued struggles in the win/loss column no matter who is hired.
I don't think Tinkle’s the greatest coach out there, but I do think he's not as bad as some here paint him to be and he's probably done better than most given OSU's support versus the support other teams in our league are given.
You can buy a new Tesla for 20% more than you can buy a new Ford Edge, but the Tesla will absolutely slaughter an Edge in a drag race every time unless the Tesla driver screws up... OSU has been equipping it's basketball coaches with Edges for years. Long term low levels of support can really impede long term success.
I think OSU will very unlikely see improvement under any coach without investing in the program itself. Since they've managed to corner themselves into a huge buyout they might asvwell at least start supporting the current guy at levels to that of the competition and see where it goes. At least that way prospective replacements mught see they'll get support.
|
|
rafer
Sophomore
Posts: 1,638 
|
Post by rafer on May 23, 2022 14:31:55 GMT -8
Does anyone really believe that Coach Tinkle is going to change in any significant way? The guy is making millions by just keeping on doing what he has been doing!
Odds are much higher that (a) one of us will be hit and killed by an asteroid or (b) one of us will win the biggest lottery prize of all time.
Coach Tinkle is what he is, and OSU basketball is what it is unless and until significantly more $$$ resources are allocated to it.
Also with the paying of players now the "norm" the fat cats are only going to get more and more of the talent.
Really is a most discouraging and depressing situation. We need a Coach who is able to (a) recruit well and/or (b) lead, inspire, and demand fundamentals, team play, and be an excellent X's and O's guy.
Instead we have a Coach who can done neither of these things.
Well, he "done" the best he could!! |
|
