|
Post by grayman on Sept 4, 2023 22:45:14 GMT -8
That absolutely does not mean that the Big 12 is not a great fit for OSU. Barnes no doubt talked to Yormark and a lot of other people. Just because he wasn't offered something right away does not mean that it will never happen. And you have no information to refute that. I posted his statement somewhere on this part of the board. Personally, I believe there are a few things that would need to happen for OSU to get an offer. It might be unlikely (even extremely unlikely) but it's not a done deal one way or another. What IS a terrible fit for OSU athletics is the MWC. Terrible in every way except for travel. The money will be far less even if OSU/WSU can pull off a deal. Football will take a step back. If we're fortunate it won't be too drastic. So will baseball. There's not really a good option for wrestling or gymnastics. There's no option for men's soccer. If things don't work out financially, then OSU could be faced with making cuts. It would be a step down and one that will be almost impossible to step back up from once it's taken. Join the crowd who just makes up "facts". What you don't know is most of what you think you say you do! And, why would I refute something that's not happening? And, changing the goalposts to "it will never happen"... well no one ever said never. Just not happening before the 2024 schedules need to be done. And, that's what matters. I post my opinions. I never claim otherwise. The exception is when I post someone's quote or an article or something of that sort. Then I attribute it to the originator of that information. And, yeah, in this case you have no facts to refute my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dave86 on Sept 5, 2023 0:32:11 GMT -8
greyman & ostate -
Thanks for taking time to reply to my post regarding potential recruiting concerns from joining the Big-12. However, I'm still not convinced there wouldn't be a problem for the Beavers if, somehow, we were able to join the Big-12. California has been a key recruiting state for the Beavers, and I'm concerned about the impact to recruiting if the Beavers are no longer regularly playing schools in that state.
My concern comes from watching Colorado joining the PAC-12, and Nebraska joining the Big-10. Both left the Big-8/Big-12 and struggled in their new conferences. Their new conferences are located in completely different states (West Coast or Mid-West) than the Big-8/Big-12 (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, etc.).
Perhaps the reason Colorado and Nebraska struggled is because they did not adapt their recruiting areas to the states their new conferences were located in.
On the other hand, Utah is a different story. Before joining the PAC-12, Utah played in the WAC & MWC, where they played against California schools like SDSU, Fresno St., and SJSU. Then Utah joins the PAC-12, and they were still playing against California schools, but this time USC & UCLA and occasionally Cal & Stanford.
Utah had great success in joining the PAC-12. Since Utah was playing in California before they joined the PAC, there was no need for them to change recruiting areas. Utah probably has 'church connections', too, that helps their recruiting, and that didn't need to change when they joined the PAC-12.
Now granted I most certainly don't know the full story why Colorado and Nebraska struggled while Utah succeeded when changing conferences. Coaching is also very important. But there could be a big difference in recruiting for Utah vs Colorado and Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 5, 2023 6:13:18 GMT -8
Join the crowd who just makes up "facts". What you don't know is most of what you think you say you do! And, why would I refute something that's not happening? And, changing the goalposts to "it will never happen"... well no one ever said never. Just not happening before the 2024 schedules need to be done. And, that's what matters. I post my opinions. I never claim otherwise. The exception is when I post someone's quote or an article or something of that sort. Then I attribute it to the originator of that information. And, yeah, in this case you have no facts to refute my opinion. He is curious one...he seems bright enough, but he literally does not understand the difference between opinion and fact. If you're going back and forth w him, my advice is to always state "this is my opinion" before anything you type.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 5, 2023 6:43:51 GMT -8
greyman & ostate - Thanks for taking time to reply to my post regarding potential recruiting concerns from joining the Big-12. However, I'm still not convinced there wouldn't be a problem for the Beavers if, somehow, we were able to join the Big-12. California has been a key recruiting state for the Beavers, and I'm concerned about the impact to recruiting if the Beavers are no longer regularly playing schools in that state. My concern comes from watching Colorado joining the PAC-12, and Nebraska joining the Big-10. Both left the Big-8/Big-12 and struggled in their new conferences. Their new conferences are located in completely different states (West Coast or Mid-West) than the Big-8/Big-12 (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, etc.). Perhaps the reason Colorado and Nebraska struggled is because they did not adapt their recruiting areas to the states their new conferences were located in. On the other hand, Utah is a different story. Before joining the PAC-12, Utah played in the WAC & MWC, where they played against California schools like SDSU, Fresno St., and SJSU. Then Utah joins the PAC-12, and they were still playing against California schools, but this time USC & UCLA and occasionally Cal & Stanford. Utah had great success in joining the PAC-12. Since Utah was playing in California before they joined the PAC, there was no need for them to change recruiting areas. Utah probably has 'church connections', too, that helps their recruiting, and that didn't need to change when they joined the PAC-12. Now granted I most certainly don't know the full story why Colorado and Nebraska struggled while Utah succeeded when changing conferences. Coaching is also very important. But there could be a big difference in recruiting for Utah vs Colorado and Nebraska. Yep on this. Rebuilding the PAC and being the top dog in the west does not have to be the death knell to recruiting some people think it is. Some kids want to win. Some kids want to play near enough to home to where family can make it to road games. Some kids will look at our staff, and not see a small time school but see coaches that are winning, improving the team, getting players into the Pros, and having some fun… that’s attractive to at least a portion of recruits. If that situation is attractive to 10-20% of the top recruits and we get a lot of them, that could actually be as successful or more successful than our recent situation. OSU’s rise can “drag” the other teams up over the next few years as the new league schools want to compete. I prefer to see our situation as a potential winning on rather than a guaranteed losing one.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 5, 2023 10:37:45 GMT -8
I post my opinions. I never claim otherwise. The exception is when I post someone's quote or an article or something of that sort. Then I attribute it to the originator of that information. And, yeah, in this case you have no facts to refute my opinion. He is curious one...he seems bright enough, but he literally does not understand the difference between opinion and fact. If you're going back and forth w him, my advice is to always state "this is my opinion" before anything you type. Or some consciously or subconsciously can't get over themselves, or don't seem to understand the difference between facts, opinions, and toxic opinions, and how they are stated. A fact is a thing that is known or proven to be true: Oregon State is a Land Grant University Google is a search engine. An opinion is a view or judgment that depends on your personal assessment: I like scotch. I prefer to wear shorts. A toxic opinion is an opinion disguised as a fact: That project will never work. Moving to the MWC will cause OSU's recruiting to suffer. OSU will lose JS if we merge to the MWC There’s no hope for OSU to improve in the MWC. The B12 is a better fit for OSU. Pontificators use toxic opinions on a regular basis. They "hide" behind the exclusion of stating an outright opinion to appear as their knowledge base is superior. As worded, a toxic opinion excludes any possibility that your/others experiences might be different. Simply put, expressing an opinion disguised as a fact makes it toxic because it diminishes anyone else’s perspective. In doing so, these pontificators typically expect a rebuttal, yet a pontificator will almost invariably fall back on the excuse, "...it is just my opinion." when challenged. This is typically a intentional divisive action and how many arguments start. One person imposes their opinion on others. The typical reaction is to push back aggressively, as the pontificator's viewpoint is a very limited one. Try harder...
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 5, 2023 10:51:45 GMT -8
Calling those opinions "toxic" is just your opinion. And as far as I've seen out of posters, few if any are claiming unequivocally that JS will leave if OSU goes to the MWC or the Beavers won't be able to recruit if they are in the MWC, etc. They are speculating and using qualifiers such as JS might be more inclined to leave if OSU goes to the MWC. Maybe that's all "toxic" to you. My guess is you see any opinion that you don't agree with as toxic.
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 5, 2023 10:54:59 GMT -8
He is curious one...he seems bright enough, but he literally does not understand the difference between opinion and fact. If you're going back and forth w him, my advice is to always state "this is my opinion" before anything you type. Or some consciously or subconsciously can't get over themselves, or don't seem to understand the difference between facts, opinions, and toxic opinions, and how they are stated. A fact is a thing that is known or proven to be true: Oregon State is a Land Grant University Google is a search engine. An opinion is a view or judgment that depends on your personal assessment: I like scotch. I prefer to wear shorts. A toxic opinion is an opinion disguised as a fact: That project will never work. Moving to the MWC will cause OSU's recruiting to suffer. OSU will lose JS if we merge to the MWC There’s no hope for OSU to improve in the MWC. The B12 is a better fit for OSU. Pontificators use toxic opinions on a regular basis. They "hide" behind the exclusion of stating an outright opinion to appear as their knowledge base is superior. As worded, a toxic opinion excludes any possibility that your/others experiences might be different. Simply put, expressing an opinion disguised as a fact makes it toxic because it diminishes anyone else’s perspective. In doing so, these pontificators typically expect a rebuttal, yet a pontificator will almost invariably fall back on the excuse, "...it is just my opinion." when challenged. This is typically a intentional divisive action and how many arguments start. One person imposes their opinion on others. The typical reaction is to push back aggressively, as the pontificator's viewpoint is a very limited one. Try harder... You were right about the fact that people are simply expressing their opinions on here, you should have stopped right there.
You are expressing opinions about whether certain viewpoints should be considered toxic, which is your prerogative. It is humorous that you accuse some of 'imposing' their viewpoints on others, hopefully you are not too blind to your own style to get that.
Stating that an opinion is an opinion is not "falling back on an..excuse". It is stating a fact , and you seem to be a huge fan of facts.
You're utterly humorless, try some humor.
|
|