|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 23, 2023 14:07:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Jul 23, 2023 15:11:24 GMT -8
Well it is fairly difficult to disagree with much in the article if not wearing orange-tinted glasses — well except that Taylor went to Pepperdine unless that is a recent move (Red Storm has him on its roster). That said, I’m hopeful we see improvement. But when you struggle to score and lose your second leading scorer while not bringing in anyone that on the surface looks to be adequate replacement(s), I can see the writer’s point of view. Gonna need someone to take a big step forward as well as see improvement by others for the team to improve its record.
I think we’ll see improvement from multiple players, but it’s that large jump by someone that I’m not so sure about. Rataj would seem the most likely and he does have a game that if improved would likely help improve those around him. If not, can smaller incremental improvement by 3-5 players plus some positive impact by some of the newcomers be enough to really move the needle? We will see. What’s nice about the off season is that anything is possible. Go Beavs.
|
|
rafer
Sophomore
Posts: 1,639 
|
Post by rafer on Jul 24, 2023 12:35:16 GMT -8
Sure they will agree, why not? If anyone thinks getting rid of Tinkle is the answer to the problem you're just ignoring the obvious. In the current day of pay for play college athletics the writing is on the wall, put up$$ or STFU. Either we buy players, or we don't, the results will be what they are, put up or shut up. If you're a quack, or usuc, or  , good for you, knowing you have a big time owner must make you very happy, like being owned by a generous pimp!!!! Unless the NIL is junked, it will only continue to get worse, how can it not?? |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jul 24, 2023 13:03:08 GMT -8
Sure they will agree, why not? If anyone thinks getting rid of Tinkle is the answer to the problem you're just ignoring the obvious. In the current day of pay for play college athletics the writing is on the wall, put up$$ or STFU. Either we buy players, or we don't, the results will be what they are, put up or shut up. If you're a quack, or usuc, or , good for you, knowing you have a big time owner must make you very happy, like being owned by a generous pimp!!!! Unless the NIL is junked, it will only continue to get worse, how can it not?? First... I do have a "dog in the fight" as I'm not, have not been a WT fan from early on. But, WT and NIL are two different issues. I'm not going to rehash my opinion of WT's shortcomings, but most have zero to do with NIL $. I also agree the NIL is nothing like it was proposed to be. Kids are getting paid to play, not specific to their name, image and likeness being used. But, that is an completely different discussion. Secondly, there are plenty of D1 schools with a smaller budget and I'll assume from their "size" have similar or less NIL $ to spend and the programs do quite well. NIL $ will never be officially known and a lot of the word of mouth is BS, but it generally focuses on, "buys" top tier elite athletes and the best ones in a program. But, the vast majority of college players are not at that level and do not get big NIL stipends. It is possible to succeed without a large budget and huge NIL pantry to pull from. I guess it all depends on the definition of "successful". On this board many deem it as a comparative term to a horrible past. Seems weird that being better than horrible is good enough. But, for example 24 of the 68 NCAA tourney teams from last years had hoop budgets at or below OSU's. Most of those programs are built with kids that will never see NBA play (league or developmental), and with smaller budgets... and I'll assume far less than the big boys in NIL money to spend. Also, in the hoops discussion only mentioning P5 teams leaves out an entire group of highly successful G5 teams that operate on much smaller budgets (and again most likely similar NIL $). In '21-22 OSU's MBB budget would rank #3 in G5 budgets (#45 in P5 of those reported)... ahead of teams like San Diego St, Boise St, Colorado St, Cincinnati, Nevada, Utah State. My point, it isn't all about the $$. It's about the $ you have being utilized in the best possible way. Not completely accurate as private schools often do not participate, but an interesting site to browse and toy around with: www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/ Another that is more generic and tends to focus more on football: knightnewhousedata.org/It's pretty simple... OSU football fell off the map and came back (then fell off again) with similar limited resources in comparison to other D1 schools. Baseball grew and became elite with the same limited resources in a similar comparison group. WBB the same. I'm guessing hoops was successful under RM (albeit a different financial era) with some financial disparities. Definitely is outside "gifts"! There is no reason to use $$ as the excuse now. The amount of money at OSU is not going to drastically change... budget or NIL... in the future. To use it as an excuse when other programs have excelled with similar restrictions makes no sense. '21-22 Football total operating expenses was 10th out of 10... Stanford/USC are private and do not report. Hoops was 9th of 10. In P5 overall... Football 46th... Hoops 45th... All Sports combined... OSU was 46th (47 reporting). In All Conferences... Football 48th... Hoops 47th... All Sports combined... OSU was 46th (97 reporting). So if the financial restrictions/limitations are similar with the athletic department what is the variable keeping the MBB program being so highly inconsistent? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 24, 2023 13:47:21 GMT -8
Sure they will agree, why not? If anyone thinks getting rid of Tinkle is the answer to the problem you're just ignoring the obvious. In the current day of pay for play college athletics the writing is on the wall, put up$$ or STFU. Either we buy players, or we don't, the results will be what they are, put up or shut up. If you're a quack, or usuc, or , good for you, knowing you have a big time owner must make you very happy, like being owned by a generous pimp!!!! Unless the NIL is junked, it will only continue to get worse, how can it not?? First... I do have a "dog in the fight" as I'm not, have not been a WT fan from early on. But, WT and NIL are two different issues. I'm not going to rehash my opinion of WT's shortcomings, but most have zero to do with NIL $. I also agree the NIL is nothing like it was proposed to be. Kids are getting paid to play, not specific to their name, image and likeness being used. But, that is an completely different discussion. Secondly, there are plenty of D1 schools with a smaller budget and I'll assume from their "size" have similar or less NIL $ to spend and the programs do quite well. NIL $ will never be officially known and a lot of the word of mouth is BS, but it generally focuses on, "buys" top tier elite athletes and the best ones in a program. But, the vast majority of college players are not at that level and do not get big NIL stipends. It is possible to succeed without a large budget and huge NIL pantry to pull from. I guess it all depends on the definition of "successful". On this board many deem it as a comparative term to a horrible past. Seems weird that being better than horrible is good enough. But, for example 24 of the 68 NCAA tourney teams from last years had hoop budgets at or below OSU's. Most of those programs are built with kids that will never see NBA play (league or developmental), and with smaller budgets... and I'll assume far less than the big boys in NIL money to spend. Also, in the hoops discussion only mentioning P5 teams leaves out an entire group of highly successful G5 teams that operate on much smaller budgets (and again most likely similar NIL $). In '21-22 OSU's MBB budget would rank #3 in G5 budgets (#45 in P5 of those reported)... ahead of teams like San Diego St, Boise St, Colorado St, Cincinnati, Nevada, Utah State. My point, it isn't all about the $$. It's about the $ you have being utilized in the best possible way. Not completely accurate as private schools often do not participate, but an interesting site to browse and toy around with: www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/ Another that is more generic and tends to focus more on football: knightnewhousedata.org/It's pretty simple... OSU football fell off the map and came back (then fell off again) with similar limited resources in comparison to other D1 schools. Baseball grew and became elite with the same limited resources in a similar comparison group. WBB the same. I'm guessing hoops was successful under RM (albeit a different financial era) with some financial disparities. Definitely is outside "gifts"! There is no reason to use $$ as the excuse now. The amount of money at OSU is not going to drastically change... budget or NIL... in the future. To use it as an excuse when other programs have excelled with similar restrictions makes no sense. '21-22 Football total operating expenses was 10th out of 10... Stanford/USC are private and do not report. Hoops was 9th of 10. In P5 overall... Football 46th... Hoops 45th... All Sports combined... OSU was 46th (47 reporting). In All Conferences... Football 48th... Hoops 47th... All Sports combined... OSU was 46th (97 reporting). So if the financial restrictions/limitations are similar with the athletic department what is the variable keeping the MBB program being so highly inconsistent? You are trying to compare apples to oranges. San Diego State spent 96% of what Oregon State spent, but that is the most in the entire Mountain West Conference. Oregon State is a small fish in a large pond. San Diego State is a large fish in a small pond. You are basically arguing that a $1,000,000 ad buy in California should be more effective than a $960,000 ad buy in Vermont, which is insane. Insane! Dollars go a hell of a lot further in the Mountain West than they do in the Pac-12. You do not need nearly as much money to compete and little amounts of money make a huge difference. This is a silly argument to make. Also, the reason that basketball is different is because the teams are so much smaller. One or two players do not usually by themselves make a team in football. But they can in basketball. We all remember those all-stars that played with Jordan and Pippen, like that short white guy, the really tall guy, that guy from another country, the guy with the silly hair, or that guy that shot funny. All-stars all! Moreover, the pool is so much smaller, because the teams are smaller. Every elite athlete is that much more important to sign and there are fewer guys that slip through all of the cracks past almost every single Power Five team to Oregon State. It is very difficult to find enough of those guys to field a team that is competitive more than two or three times every five years. Finally, just as a general rule, you should always answer your own rhetorical questions. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 24, 2023 14:16:07 GMT -8
First... I do have a "dog in the fight" as I'm not, have not been a WT fan from early on. But, WT and NIL are two different issues. I'm not going to rehash my opinion of WT's shortcomings, but most have zero to do with NIL $. I also agree the NIL is nothing like it was proposed to be. Kids are getting paid to play, not specific to their name, image and likeness being used. But, that is an completely different discussion. Secondly, there are plenty of D1 schools with a smaller budget and I'll assume from their "size" have similar or less NIL $ to spend and the programs do quite well. NIL $ will never be officially known and a lot of the word of mouth is BS, but it generally focuses on, "buys" top tier elite athletes and the best ones in a program. But, the vast majority of college players are not at that level and do not get big NIL stipends. It is possible to succeed without a large budget and huge NIL pantry to pull from. I guess it all depends on the definition of "successful". On this board many deem it as a comparative term to a horrible past. Seems weird that being better than horrible is good enough. But, for example 24 of the 68 NCAA tourney teams from last years had hoop budgets at or below OSU's. Most of those programs are built with kids that will never see NBA play (league or developmental), and with smaller budgets... and I'll assume far less than the big boys in NIL money to spend. Also, in the hoops discussion only mentioning P5 teams leaves out an entire group of highly successful G5 teams that operate on much smaller budgets (and again most likely similar NIL $). In '21-22 OSU's MBB budget would rank #3 in G5 budgets (#45 in P5 of those reported)... ahead of teams like San Diego St, Boise St, Colorado St, Cincinnati, Nevada, Utah State. My point, it isn't all about the $$. It's about the $ you have being utilized in the best possible way. Not completely accurate as private schools often do not participate, but an interesting site to browse and toy around with: www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/ Another that is more generic and tends to focus more on football: knightnewhousedata.org/It's pretty simple... OSU football fell off the map and came back (then fell off again) with similar limited resources in comparison to other D1 schools. Baseball grew and became elite with the same limited resources in a similar comparison group. WBB the same. I'm guessing hoops was successful under RM (albeit a different financial era) with some financial disparities. Definitely is outside "gifts"! There is no reason to use $$ as the excuse now. The amount of money at OSU is not going to drastically change... budget or NIL... in the future. To use it as an excuse when other programs have excelled with similar restrictions makes no sense. '21-22 Football total operating expenses was 10th out of 10... Stanford/USC are private and do not report. Hoops was 9th of 10. In P5 overall... Football 46th... Hoops 45th... All Sports combined... OSU was 46th (47 reporting). In All Conferences... Football 48th... Hoops 47th... All Sports combined... OSU was 46th (97 reporting). So if the financial restrictions/limitations are similar with the athletic department what is the variable keeping the MBB program being so highly inconsistent? You are trying to compare apples to oranges. San Diego State spent 96% of what Oregon State spent, but that is the most in the entire Mountain West Conference. Oregon State is a small fish in a large pond. San Diego State is a large fish in a small pond. You are basically arguing that a $1,000,000 ad buy in California should be more effective than a $960,000 ad buy in Vermont, which is insane. Insane! Dollars go a hell of a lot further in the Mountain West than they do in the Pac-12. You do not need nearly as much money to compete and little amounts of money make a huge difference. This is a silly argument to make. Also, the reason that basketball is different is because the teams are so much smaller. One or two players do not usually by themselves make a team in football. But they can in basketball. We all remember those all-stars that played with Jordan and Pippen, like that short white guy, the really tall guy, that guy from another country, the guy with the silly hair, or that guy that shot funny. All-stars all! Moreover, the pool is so much smaller, because the teams are smaller. Every elite athlete is that much more important to sign and there are fewer guys that slip through all of the cracks past almost every single Power Five team to Oregon State. It is very difficult to find enough of those guys to field a team that is competitive more than two or three times every five years. Finally, just as a general rule, you should always answer your own rhetorical questions. Just to add to this, Grand Canyon made the Tournament in 2023. Grand Canyon spends the most money compared to all teams in its conference of any team in the country. Liberty is second of spending the most money compared to all teams in its conference. Liberty won the regular season Atlantic Sun Championship but lost the Atlantic Sun Championship Game by a point and played in the NIT, downing Nova before losing to Wisconsin in Madison by four. Gonzaga is third by that metric and went to the Elite Eight, beating Grand Canyon in the process. Kentucky is fifth. Tournament. Texas Southern is seventh. Tournament. Arizona is ninth. Tournament. Duke is tenth. Tournament. Iona is eleventh. Tournament. Texas is twelfth. Elite Eight. Plus, I am trying to figure out where you get your budget information from. I believe that Oregon State would be no higher than tenth in G5 spending. I have to believe more basketball programs spend more than Oregon State other than just Gonzaga and Houston. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 24, 2023 14:48:15 GMT -8
I found some interesting budget articles that actually are current. Overall sports revenues at OSU were the lowest of the Pac-12 schools in 2022, while spending was 11th. sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/financesI was surprised to find recent basketball budgets. OSU was 87th at just under 5 million - lowest in the Pac 12, over 400k below Grand Canyon, about 120k higher than Utah State, and not all that much more than SDSU (who I bet will probably boost investments in their sports programs once they start participating in the Pac 12 media splits. The Mountain West media deal is currently only 4 million per school, the Pac 12 is shooting for 30 mil or more). theresourcenexus.com/budget/ |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jul 24, 2023 15:38:23 GMT -8
I found some interesting budget articles that actually are current. Overall sports revenues at OSU were the lowest of the Pac-12 schools in 2022, while spending was 11th. sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/financesI was surprised to find recent basketball budgets. OSU was 87th at just under 5 million - lowest in the Pac 12, over 400k below Grand Canyon, about 120k higher than Utah State, and not all that much more than SDSU (who I bet will probably boost investments in their sports programs once they start participating in the Pac 12 media splits. The Mountain West media deal is currently only 4 million per school, the Pac 12 is shooting for 30 mil or more). theresourcenexus.com/budget/OSU didn't cut its hoops budget $2.5 mil since 2021. Not sure where they get $5 mil for MBB but that's not close. And, OSU had revenue that was 54th overall. The point being the postseason includes all D1 teams. Many with far more limitations than OSU. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jul 24, 2023 15:57:14 GMT -8
First... I do have a "dog in the fight" as I'm not, have not been a WT fan from early on. But, WT and NIL are two different issues. I'm not going to rehash my opinion of WT's shortcomings, but most have zero to do with NIL $. I also agree the NIL is nothing like it was proposed to be. Kids are getting paid to play, not specific to their name, image and likeness being used. But, that is an completely different discussion. Secondly, there are plenty of D1 schools with a smaller budget and I'll assume from their "size" have similar or less NIL $ to spend and the programs do quite well. NIL $ will never be officially known and a lot of the word of mouth is BS, but it generally focuses on, "buys" top tier elite athletes and the best ones in a program. But, the vast majority of college players are not at that level and do not get big NIL stipends. It is possible to succeed without a large budget and huge NIL pantry to pull from. I guess it all depends on the definition of "successful". On this board many deem it as a comparative term to a horrible past. Seems weird that being better than horrible is good enough. But, for example 24 of the 68 NCAA tourney teams from last years had hoop budgets at or below OSU's. Most of those programs are built with kids that will never see NBA play (league or developmental), and with smaller budgets... and I'll assume far less than the big boys in NIL money to spend. Also, in the hoops discussion only mentioning P5 teams leaves out an entire group of highly successful G5 teams that operate on much smaller budgets (and again most likely similar NIL $). In '21-22 OSU's MBB budget would rank #3 in G5 budgets (#45 in P5 of those reported)... ahead of teams like San Diego St, Boise St, Colorado St, Cincinnati, Nevada, Utah State. My point, it isn't all about the $$. It's about the $ you have being utilized in the best possible way. Not completely accurate as private schools often do not participate, but an interesting site to browse and toy around with: www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/ Another that is more generic and tends to focus more on football: knightnewhousedata.org/It's pretty simple... OSU football fell off the map and came back (then fell off again) with similar limited resources in comparison to other D1 schools. Baseball grew and became elite with the same limited resources in a similar comparison group. WBB the same. I'm guessing hoops was successful under RM (albeit a different financial era) with some financial disparities. Definitely is outside "gifts"! There is no reason to use $$ as the excuse now. The amount of money at OSU is not going to drastically change... budget or NIL... in the future. To use it as an excuse when other programs have excelled with similar restrictions makes no sense. '21-22 Football total operating expenses was 10th out of 10... Stanford/USC are private and do not report. Hoops was 9th of 10. In P5 overall... Football 46th... Hoops 45th... All Sports combined... OSU was 46th (47 reporting). In All Conferences... Football 48th... Hoops 47th... All Sports combined... OSU was 46th (97 reporting). So if the financial restrictions/limitations are similar with the athletic department what is the variable keeping the MBB program being so highly inconsistent? You are trying to compare apples to oranges. San Diego State spent 96% of what Oregon State spent, but that is the most in the entire Mountain West Conference. Oregon State is a small fish in a large pond. San Diego State is a large fish in a small pond. You are basically arguing that a $1,000,000 ad buy in California should be more effective than a $960,000 ad buy in Vermont, which is insane. Insane! Dollars go a hell of a lot further in the Mountain West than they do in the Pac-12. You do not need nearly as much money to compete and little amounts of money make a huge difference. This is a silly argument to make. Also, the reason that basketball is different is because the teams are so much smaller. One or two players do not usually by themselves make a team in football. But they can in basketball. We all remember those all-stars that played with Jordan and Pippen, like that short white guy, the really tall guy, that guy from another country, the guy with the silly hair, or that guy that shot funny. All-stars all! Moreover, the pool is so much smaller, because the teams are smaller. Every elite athlete is that much more important to sign and there are fewer guys that slip through all of the cracks past almost every single Power Five team to Oregon State. It is very difficult to find enough of those guys to field a team that is competitive more than two or three times every five years. Finally, just as a general rule, you should always answer your own rhetorical questions. You answered with your typical "apples to oranges" BS. The guy who, by far, cherry picks the most data and info to try to justify his points. Lol Ads? Really? 🤣🤣 That's your chosen analogy? Oh my! The Pac12 comparison would matter if OSU only competed with Pac12 schools. But, as shown schools with nearly half the budgets are more successful. The excuses will continue, but $ aren't the main issue at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by beaversrock on Jul 24, 2023 16:29:01 GMT -8
It has to be all about money. How else could the great Wayne Tinkle lose to Portland State twice last year. Portland State must have a huge basketball budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 24, 2023 16:30:58 GMT -8
"The Pac12 comparison would matter if OSU only competed with Pac12 schools. But, as shown schools with nearly half the budgets are more successful.
The excuses will continue, but $ aren't the main issue at hand."
OSU has the lowest budget of any Pac 12 team. The schools elsewhere with nearly half the basketball budgets ypu are talking about are not playing Pac 12 schedules, they're generally playing the bulk of their games against other teams with low budgets. Most would certainly struggle more playing a Pac 12 league schedule.
Gonzaga (which is a goid team) has a way, way, way higher basketball budget than any other team in its own conference and routinely cakewalks through it's league schedule. They do have nearly twice the basketball budget of OSU, but my guess is they would not be winning the PAC every year, might even miss the NCAA tournament every now and then, if they were members.
You have to take the league competition into consideration. OSU has the lowest basketball budget in its league, and they probably have been in the bottom two for a couple decades. Based on budgets, they should be at or near the bottom of the league pretty much every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Jul 24, 2023 16:48:08 GMT -8
It has to be all about money. How else could the great Wayne Tinkle lose to Portland State twice last year. Portland State must have a huge basketball budget. Exactly. Ouch. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverology on Jul 24, 2023 17:23:19 GMT -8
The lowest budget of any Pac12 team.
One of the most difficult places to recruit MBB in the country.
Only Pac12 school with an NIL collective that won't give $ to new recruits.
An assistant coach quits because he's so frustrated with recruiting disadvantages.
St John's poaches OSU MBB best player with modest NIL money. Was there even an attempt to counter offer? No?
Track record of 6 failed coaches in a row.
All of this makes it one of the toughest jobs in college MBB.
What decent coach would take that job?
WBB is a different sport, so is baseball. Don't compare them to MBB.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Jul 24, 2023 17:44:16 GMT -8
Heck just extend Wayne's contract til HE doesn't want to coach any more. After all there isn't any coach anywhere that could put life into the program (sarcasm). Why take a chance that another coach might be able to win you know more than 45% of overall games and 35% of league games. The love affair some have with him is well weird. I wonder how many coaches stay at the same school for 10 years even with decent records I am betting there are very few.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverology on Jul 24, 2023 17:52:57 GMT -8
This is what happens when you point out the reality of OSU MBB, you get responses like this. They can never address the points offered, just veer off on some weird tangent with a creepy insult. After 6 failed coaches in a row, you'd think some people would open their eyes. Maybe it will take 7 failed coaches in a row.
|
|
, good for you, knowing you have a big time owner must make you very happy, like being owned by a generous pimp!!!! Unless the NIL is junked, it will only continue to get worse, how can it not??
