|
|
Post by grayman on Dec 14, 2022 18:39:12 GMT -8
My comparison to what Rueck did is meant to be taken at a 10,000ft level. Yes, there are obviously differences in the men's and women's game and the pro possibilities and motivations of the student athletes. But at a very high level, the bottom line in college athletics is you're either a Have, or a Have Not. The key to consistent top recruiting is to be a Have. OSU Baseball made that jump. Women's basketball made that jump. As much as we hate it, the uo football program made that jump. Is it really out of the question that OSU men's basketball can make that jump? I consider what Rueck has done to be a downright miracle. Our women's program had NOTHING going for it. No history of success. No tradition. And now we are routinely recruiting the top players in the nation, landing highly ranked recruiting classes, and regularly competing for conference titles and making the postseason. I think analyzing how he did that can he very constructive in replicating it elsewhere. Rueck's first season wasn't pretty. But he cobbled together the best pieces he could find, coached the hell out of them to win a decent number of games within a couple years, and established that tradition of success. Incidentally, I see the same thing happening with our football program under Smith. Football's a much bigger and slower ship to turn around than a BB program, but I see that same path being taken. We're in the top third of the conference, and we got here with 3 star recruits. And now we're seeing a few bigger successes on the recruiting trail. That's EXACTLY the pattern we need to see. If Smitty sticks around a while and maintains a steady staff, I'm fairly confident we'll be pinching ourselves in 5 years over the heights that program will reach. And that includes what we might see on the recruiting front. This can be done in any program at OSU, regardless of our small town feel or remote location. I guess my point here is that I'm firmly in the camp that believes consistent winning comes first, and recruiting follows. If we want to recruit well, we need to win first. I think this is very consistent with the point that the best BB players want to go where their pro chances are best. Those guys aren't going to take a flyer on a team that's not winning. We need to be a Have. We need a coach who's putting us on that trajectory. Is Tinkle that coach? I honestly don't know. My gut says no, though I like the guy and acknowledge he's had the most success since Miller. Pat Casey took a decade to find his footing, so it's not necessarily something that might happen immediately upon a hire. You need some luck, too. Who would have thought an unknown post player from Canada named Ruth Hamblin would be such a dominant force and lead us to such insane heights? Call me crazy, but I see a future star in Jordan Pope, not just in his play, but with the way he carries himself. If Tinkle can build a solid team around that guy for a few years, I could see us finally getting on that coveted trajectory to being a Have. But man, is it tough to do. Takes a really special coach. We've managed to find a few. But not in men's BB yet. Hope it happens (or manifests itself in our current coach) soon. I don't believe what Rueck did to turn around the women's basketball program was a miracle at all. IMO, college women's basketball as a whole was wide open and fertile ground for any school to develop a strong program about 10 years ago. Sure, you had to find a good coach and give the program at least a decent amount of support. Rueck arrived at OSU, eventually put together the talent to win and did so at the time. The higher level recruits then began to consider OSU and even sign with the Beavers. I won't go too far into why I think that hasn't paid off for OSU like it seems it should other than to say that not long after the Beavers started to win at a high level, college women's basketball hit a boom period, many programs improved significantly and the style of play became more dynamic among many of those teams. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Dec 14, 2022 18:51:07 GMT -8
What Smith has done is great, but football is a much different animal than the other sports. Just one example is the number of players involved. If Smith misses on a few players, others are there. Basketball leaves very little leeway.
Player development is also much different. In football, players can improve themselves physically along with learning better skills, etc. Most men's basketball players are not going to grow in a significant enough way by the time they're in college and there's not as much leeway to develop skills beyond learning what Tinkle wants on offense and defense.
The reality that OSU is in Corvallis is also a factor. There's plenty of athletes who are fine with the small town setting and plenty who want to be in big cities.
Who the coach is definitely can sway a recruit. So can recent success or at least the impression that the program is on the brink of breaking through. Historical success can help to a degree, but in the case of OSU men's basketball, that is too long in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 14, 2022 20:00:25 GMT -8
What Smith has done is great, but football is a much different animal than the other sports. Just one example is the number of players involved. If Smith misses on a few players, others are there. Basketball leaves very little leeway. Player development is also much different. In football, players can improve themselves physically along with learning better skills, etc. Most men's basketball players are not going to grow in a significant enough way by the time they're in college and there's not as much leeway to develop skills beyond learning what Tinkle wants on offense and defense. The reality that OSU is in Corvallis is also a factor. There's plenty of athletes who are fine with the small town setting and plenty who want to be in big cities. Who the coach is definitely can sway a recruit. So can recent success or at least the impression that the program is on the brink of breaking through. Historical success can help to a degree, but in the case of OSU men's basketball, that is too long in the past. Define “too long in the past”, does a Elite 8 appearance less than 2 years ago not count at all? I bothered to look something up. In the last 7 years the Beavs have been to the tournament twice - Actually, I should say the last 6 times the tournament was held the Beavers were in twice - they were on the cusp of a possible invite in 2020 when the tournament was cancelled - Can WSU, UW, Cal and Stanford say that? Nope. How about Utah, Colorado and ASU? It’s a push, all with 2 tournament visits each. Basically 4 teams have significantly outperformed the rest of the conference. I do think that most of your points are right though. 24/25 seasons without a tournament visit is a loooong time to try to get out of people’s memory, at least the team has had some good years under Tinkle, I’m not expecting much this year but we’ll see. Next year’s recruiting class is tiny, it will be curious to see what the following class brings and who's doing the recruiting at that point… a lot hinges on this season. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Dec 14, 2022 20:29:57 GMT -8
What Smith has done is great, but football is a much different animal than the other sports. Just one example is the number of players involved. If Smith misses on a few players, others are there. Basketball leaves very little leeway. Player development is also much different. In football, players can improve themselves physically along with learning better skills, etc. Most men's basketball players are not going to grow in a significant enough way by the time they're in college and there's not as much leeway to develop skills beyond learning what Tinkle wants on offense and defense. The reality that OSU is in Corvallis is also a factor. There's plenty of athletes who are fine with the small town setting and plenty who want to be in big cities. Who the coach is definitely can sway a recruit. So can recent success or at least the impression that the program is on the brink of breaking through. Historical success can help to a degree, but in the case of OSU men's basketball, that is too long in the past. Define “too long in the past”, does a Elite 8 appearance less than 2 years ago not count at all? I bothered to look something up. In the last 7 years the Beavs have been to the tournament twice - Actually, I should say the last 6 times the tournament was held the Beavers were in twice - they were on the cusp of a possible invite in 2020 when the tournament was cancelled - Can WSU, UW, Cal and Stanford say that? Nope. How about Utah, Colorado and ASU? It’s a push, all with 2 tournament visits each. Basically 4 teams have significantly outperformed the rest of the conference. I do think that most of your points are right though. 24/25 seasons without a tournament visit is a loooong time to try to get out of people’s memory, at least the team has had some good years under Tinkle, I’m not expecting much this year but we’ll see. Next year’s recruiting class is tiny, it will be curious to see what the following class brings and who's doing the recruiting at that point… a lot hinges on this season. Historical success infers a time period, usually of many years, of consistent winning. The historical success OSU had ended by the beginning of the 90s. I never said Tinkle couldn't put together winning teams. This thread is about recruiting and I was merely pointing out some of differences between football and men's basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 14, 2022 22:11:15 GMT -8
Define “too long in the past”, does a Elite 8 appearance less than 2 years ago not count at all? I bothered to look something up. In the last 7 years the Beavs have been to the tournament twice - Actually, I should say the last 6 times the tournament was held the Beavers were in twice - they were on the cusp of a possible invite in 2020 when the tournament was cancelled - Can WSU, UW, Cal and Stanford say that? Nope. How about Utah, Colorado and ASU? It’s a push, all with 2 tournament visits each. Basically 4 teams have significantly outperformed the rest of the conference. I do think that most of your points are right though. 24/25 seasons without a tournament visit is a loooong time to try to get out of people’s memory, at least the team has had some good years under Tinkle, I’m not expecting much this year but we’ll see. Next year’s recruiting class is tiny, it will be curious to see what the following class brings and who's doing the recruiting at that point… a lot hinges on this season. Historical success infers a time period, usually of many years, of consistent winning. The historical success OSU had ended by the beginning of the 90s. I never said Tinkle couldn't put together winning teams. This thread is about recruiting and I was merely pointing out some of differences between football and men's basketball. Sorry, you’re right on all that. Some of the other threads have got me worked up. Basically Tinkle’s having to create a new history here. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Dec 15, 2022 7:51:03 GMT -8
So, because I understand where college sports are heading, I don't have the right to weigh in on the question that started this thread? Let's see ... " What is the problem? I'd like to hear some reasons/explanations other than WT, CJS and Legi are bad recruiters." I addressed the question and you ignored it and put the blame on the coaches -- which the OP specifically requested not be done. What exactly do you teach? Because reading comprehension, research, and analytical reasoning don't appear to be parts of your skillset? I didn't write that you had no right to your opinion - I just didn't understand why you care since you've carefully explained that there's no future in sports at OSU. I usually move on when I feel this way about something but I can see your point.
I have not stated here that I believe that Tinkle is a bad recruiter and did not place any blame on him. My exact quote is "The fact that OSU is an ag school has nothing to do with OSU's ability to recruit MBB players or perform on the court. That is the domain of the MBB coaching staff" I was disputing whether OSU being an ag school had any bearing on recruiting or coaching. There's nothing in my post about the quality of either but you've written that I have anyway. Talk about bad reading comprehension.
I recall that many complained about the defense in football would only get better when the talent got better. A few weeks later, Coach Smith fired Tibesar and replaced him with Bray. The defense got better with little change in the roster. Turned out the talent was fine and that Smith and his staff are decent recruiters and have no problem getting the talent they need at that ag school in boring Corvallis.
I reject the notion that recruiting at OSU is too difficult for coaches to be successful - the premise of this discussion. It is indeed hard but not impossible. 9-3 says otherwise.
I no longer teach. That was the hardest part of my job to give up when I left my position as professor. Now 113 STEM faculty at your favorite university call me boss. You can have the last word and I will not bother to reply.
Congratulations on the new job! |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Dec 15, 2022 22:01:08 GMT -8
What Smith has done is great, but football is a much different animal than the other sports. Just one example is the number of players involved. If Smith misses on a few players, others are there. Basketball leaves very little leeway. Player development is also much different. In football, players can improve themselves physically along with learning better skills, etc. Most men's basketball players are not going to grow in a significant enough way by the time they're in college and there's not as much leeway to develop skills beyond learning what Tinkle wants on offense and defense. The reality that OSU is in Corvallis is also a factor. There's plenty of athletes who are fine with the small town setting and plenty who want to be in big cities. Who the coach is definitely can sway a recruit. So can recent success or at least the impression that the program is on the brink of breaking through. Historical success can help to a degree, but in the case of OSU men's basketball, that is too long in the past. I agree with most of what you’re saying here, but I think you undercut the development aspect. These are still kids and can still develop physical strength, quickness, refined movements, endurance, and knowledge or feel for the game. Perhaps the amount pales in comparison to the extreme development of football athletes, but it is still an important factor. I do like your comparison with the number of players in football. The margin for error in basketball is very small. We don’t have three back up guards who are ready to play like we do running backs. I think Tinkle has brought in some strong players. But we need more quality surrounding them, and we need the team to gel faster. In the end, I’m not convinced that we need a stable of four or five star athletes to compete well in any sport. We need them to believe in themselves, trust their teammates, and give their full effort. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Dec 15, 2022 22:13:46 GMT -8
So, because I understand where college sports are heading, I don't have the right to weigh in on the question that started this thread? Let's see ... " What is the problem? I'd like to hear some reasons/explanations other than WT, CJS and Legi are bad recruiters." I addressed the question and you ignored it and put the blame on the coaches -- which the OP specifically requested not be done. What exactly do you teach? Because reading comprehension, research, and analytical reasoning don't appear to be parts of your skillset? I didn't write that you had no right to your opinion - I just didn't understand why you care since you've carefully explained that there's no future in sports at OSU. I usually move on when I feel this way about something but I can see your point.
I have not stated here that I believe that Tinkle is a bad recruiter and did not place any blame on him. My exact quote is "The fact that OSU is an ag school has nothing to do with OSU's ability to recruit MBB players or perform on the court. That is the domain of the MBB coaching staff" I was disputing whether OSU being an ag school had any bearing on recruiting or coaching. There's nothing in my post about the quality of either but you've written that I have anyway. Talk about bad reading comprehension.
I recall that many complained about the defense in football would only get better when the talent got better. A few weeks later, Coach Smith fired Tibesar and replaced him with Bray. The defense got better with little change in the roster. Turned out the talent was fine and that Smith and his staff are decent recruiters and have no problem getting the talent they need at that ag school in boring Corvallis.
I reject the notion that recruiting at OSU is too difficult for coaches to be successful - the premise of this discussion. It is indeed hard but not impossible. 9-3 says otherwise.
I no longer teach. That was the hardest part of my job to give up when I left my position as professor. Now 113 STEM faculty at your favorite university call me boss. You can have the last word and I will not bother to reply.
I agree, for the most part. I am skeptical of the star rating of high school and college athletes. After all, a guy could be an excellent receiver but is paired with a crappy quarterback in high school, so he never gets the numbers he deserves. But your point about Tibesar and Bray leaves out that we needed better defensive recruits to run Tibesar’s defense. That part was true. Tibesar wasn’t flexible enough, in my opinion, to use the talent we had in the way that would be most successful. Bray has. So the obvious answer is that we need coaches who can recognize the strengths of the players we have and create the offense or defense around them. Help the players shine. |
|
|
|
Post by aicandme on Dec 16, 2022 6:59:24 GMT -8
Craig Robinson is proof you can recruit to OSU. He couldn't coach but he certainly brought in talented players. Nelson, Collier, Cunningham, Moreland, and Payton Jr immediately come to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverology on Dec 16, 2022 7:20:58 GMT -8
With regards to Craig Robinson: One 4 star recruit? This makes Nelson an outlier. Every Beaver MBB HC has brought in 'talented players'. This just proves my original point, as does the current 2023 football recruiting class. We have 2 four star commits who have made the all time 'Recruiting Hall of Fame'. What does that say about our recruiting history?
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 16, 2022 10:16:18 GMT -8
Craig Robinson is proof you can recruit to OSU. He couldn't coach but he certainly brought in talented players. Nelson, Collier, Cunningham, Moreland, and Payton Jr immediately come to mind. If you look at the actual recruiting rankings for the last 20 years or so and throw out the family member recruits, there’s still not a lot of difference between the two coaches’ recruiting. Payton Jr decommitted after Robinson was canned so it can be argued he’s a Tinkle recruit as well, Tinkle has recruited a couple guards that were rated higher than Payton (including Pope this year). |
|
|
|
Post by steinlager on Dec 16, 2022 10:27:30 GMT -8
It may be difficult to bring in 4 star guys to Corvallis, but 3 star players can develop with good coaching. Riley did it for years.
Tinkle burned down the program last year but is on the right track with the recruits he brought in.
Pope for one looks like a 4 star to build around.
|
|
|
|
Post by babeav on Dec 16, 2022 11:24:13 GMT -8
Wayne’s got a nice group to build on Taylor Jr .Pope, Wright, Billadeau, Rockelin and Rataj are building blocks that we need to retain. Krass I’m not so sure of but maybe he needs more time, probable portal kid.
Need Ibekwe, Marrs and Ndong to be ready for 2023.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Dec 16, 2022 11:52:29 GMT -8
Craig Robinson is proof you can recruit to OSU. He couldn't coach but he certainly brought in talented players. Nelson, Collier, Cunningham, Moreland, and Payton Jr immediately come to mind. If you look at the actual recruiting rankings for the last 20 years or so and throw out the family member recruits, there’s still not a lot of difference between the two coaches’ recruiting. Payton Jr decommitted after Robinson was canned so it can be argued he’s a Tinkle recruit as well, Tinkle has recruited a couple guards that were rated higher than Payton (including Pope this year). I've always attributed GP II as being a legacy from his father far more than being any particular OSU coach's recruit. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Dec 16, 2022 21:43:10 GMT -8
What Smith has done is great, but football is a much different animal than the other sports. Just one example is the number of players involved. If Smith misses on a few players, others are there. Basketball leaves very little leeway. Player development is also much different. In football, players can improve themselves physically along with learning better skills, etc. Most men's basketball players are not going to grow in a significant enough way by the time they're in college and there's not as much leeway to develop skills beyond learning what Tinkle wants on offense and defense. The reality that OSU is in Corvallis is also a factor. There's plenty of athletes who are fine with the small town setting and plenty who want to be in big cities. Who the coach is definitely can sway a recruit. So can recent success or at least the impression that the program is on the brink of breaking through. Historical success can help to a degree, but in the case of OSU men's basketball, that is too long in the past. I agree with most of what you’re saying here, but I think you undercut the development aspect. These are still kids and can still develop physical strength, quickness, refined movements, endurance, and knowledge or feel for the game. Perhaps the amount pales in comparison to the extreme development of football athletes, but it is still an important factor. I do like your comparison with the number of players in football. The margin for error in basketball is very small. We don’t have three back up guards who are ready to play like we do running backs. I think Tinkle has brought in some strong players. But we need more quality surrounding them, and we need the team to gel faster. In the end, I’m not convinced that we need a stable of four or five star athletes to compete well in any sport. We need them to believe in themselves, trust their teammates, and give their full effort. Yes, what I was getting at as far as the physical development in football is that is not uncommon for guys to come in as, for example, a 190-pound linebacker and leave as a 230-pound starting LB. Or even a 220-pound tight end and leave as a 300-pound left tackle. There's nothing in basketball that compares, but you're right that it can be a factor for basketball players. |
|
