|
|
Post by beaverbeliever71 on Mar 23, 2024 11:18:07 GMT -8
I’m disappointed with the season like everyone else, but after watching these tournament games and then looking up the ages of all the guys that are on these tournament rosters I don’t feel that bad about the beaver season anymore. If by some miracle this team stays together, I think they’ll actually be pretty darn good next year…… probably need to add a beefy inside guy, and if we can get a point guard that is past first that can dribble penetrate. It could be a pretty exciting team. Didn't OSU have a PG who missed the whole season due to injury? Nate Meithof. Torn ACL. Maybe he will make a difference next season. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Mar 23, 2024 12:49:48 GMT -8
I’m disappointed with the season like everyone else, but after watching these tournament games and then looking up the ages of all the guys that are on these tournament rosters I don’t feel that bad about the beaver season anymore. If by some miracle this team stays together, I think they’ll actually be pretty darn good next year…… probably need to add a beefy inside guy, and if we can get a point guard that is past first that can dribble penetrate. It could be a pretty exciting team. Pretty much every game in league play this year, 2-3 statistical leaders/starters on each team were 4th or 5th year seniors, some had juniors mixed in as well on top of the seniors. The Beavs were seriously young. |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Mar 23, 2024 13:18:01 GMT -8
Pac-12 gets money that it earns from the Tournament paid out over six years. The 10 teams leaving the Pac-12 do not get any of that money. Instead, the Pac-12 money is split evenly by its two remaining members. The Pac-12 can go dormant from 20204-2026 as long as there is still at least an eight-team Pac-12 in football in 2026. Assuming that that occurs, the Pac-12 will determine how that money is split. Yes, but there’s a possibility that we only collect 2 of the 6 years of payouts if we join another conference in 2026. Then, I’m unsure how the other 4 years of payouts would be divided up. Assuming that the issue was not addressed as part of the dissolution agreement between the Pac 2 and the Traitorous Ten, it seems there is a good argument that the leftovers would remain with OSU and WSU as the last remaining members of the conference, especially if they have retained all voting power. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Mar 23, 2024 13:43:15 GMT -8
LOL... new excuses.
Most people know age has little to do with overall NCAA success. "Old" team lose to "young" teams ALL the time... regular season and post. San Diego State (23.0) trounced by UConn (21.3) Who has more "experience" a Soph who played 95% of the minutes over two seasons or a 5th years Sr who barley saw the floor his first three seasons? OSU had lots of game/minutes played returning and in the same system. Is years in the same system mean more than just a player's age of say someone transferring in? Far too many variables to even try to justify age as a reason for these last three seasons. Plus... part of being an "old" team is the ability to actually keep players in the program. Hmmmmm...
OSU averaged about 21 (20.7 as far as I can tell with limited bdays listed) years of age... older than several top 25 teams. OSU had more game experience than say Arizona's 2023 NCAA tourney team of 0.52. Point blank the program is not in good shape and "age" isn't the reason. For every "old" team you can find I can find team younger than excelled.
There is one reason and one reason ONLY for the state of the program...
|
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Mar 23, 2024 16:26:11 GMT -8
No more real Pac teams in the tourney. Nice season wazoo.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Mar 23, 2024 16:30:33 GMT -8
Based on the previous 9 seasons the Beavs must have been young pretty much every season.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Mar 23, 2024 16:46:35 GMT -8
Based on the previous 9 seasons the Beavs must have been young pretty much every season. Funny... youth as an excuse yet who is responsible for said roster? |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Mar 23, 2024 17:51:25 GMT -8
LOL... new excuses. Most people know age has little to do with overall NCAA success. "Old" team lose to "young" teams ALL the time... regular season and post. San Diego State (23.0) trounced by UConn (21.3) Who has more "experience" a Soph who played 95% of the minutes over two seasons or a 5th years Sr who barley saw the floor his first three seasons? OSU had lots of game/minutes played returning and in the same system. Is years in the same system mean more than just a player's age of say someone transferring in? Far too many variables to even try to justify age as a reason for these last three seasons. Plus... part of being an "old" team is the ability to actually keep players in the program. Hmmmmm... OSU averaged about 21 (20.7 as far as I can tell with limited bdays listed) years of age... older than several top 25 teams. OSU had more game experience than say Arizona's 2023 NCAA tourney team of 0.52. Point blank the program is not in good shape and "age" isn't the reason. For every "old" team you can find I can find team younger than excelled. There is one reason and one reason ONLY for the state of the program... I already looked up and printed the info on the uo team to respond to your minutes argument a week or two ago. Their career minutes blew ours away.... " As far as the minutes thing goes.... for career minutes our top 6 guys have 9421 total minutes, with Dexter leading the way at 2229, Pope has 2111. Sounds like a lot... to some. Neither Tyler, Michael nor Christian have reached the 1500 minute mark yet. KC, one of those top 6, has a career total of 705 minutes. Now let's look at Oregon's roster this year. Couisnard leads the way with 3334 minutes. Oquendo, Dante, Barthellemy and Diawara all have more career minutes than Jordan. Shelstad, Tracey, Rigsby, Bittle and Zarzuela all have more minutes than KC. The total career minutes played by those with more minutes than KC is 17,371 minutes." I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that holds up for just about every team in the league. If stating the facts about the differing level of experience between the Beavs and the rest of the league is an "excuse" - then you were making up "excuses" for our opponents' losses in a few games where you came on and talked about the only reason they lost is because the Beavers had a hot shooting night. There are some great "young" teams that did well, and they tend to get even better as they age if they stick together. You are quick to dismiss the possibility that these kids will get better as they gain more experience. Heck even during the "glory years the '80 and '81 teams won 8-10 games more than the '78 and '79 teams with basically the same starting core.... they got better than they were as freshman ad sophomores. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Mar 23, 2024 18:10:23 GMT -8
Based on the previous 9 seasons the Beavs must have been young pretty much every season. Funny... youth as an excuse yet who is responsible for said roster? The youth is very real, but Tinkle flat out failed to capitalize on the sweet 16 run. That's on him, and he's kind of lucky to still be here, it was 3 seasons ago now, and this team shows promise. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Mar 23, 2024 18:23:59 GMT -8
Funny... youth as an excuse yet who is responsible for said roster? The youth is very real, but Tinkle flat out failed to capitalize on the sweet 16 run. That's on him, and he's kind of lucky to still be here, it was 3 seasons ago now, and this team shows promise. It was an Elite 8 run, not a sweet 16 run. |
|
|
|
Post by joecool on Mar 23, 2024 18:29:35 GMT -8
The youth is very real, but Tinkle flat out failed to capitalize on the sweet 16 run. That's on him, and he's kind of lucky to still be here, it was 3 seasons ago now, and this team shows promise. It was an Elite 8 run, not a sweet 16 run. Technically it was both. |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Mar 23, 2024 18:44:44 GMT -8
Assuming no major transfers out I'm betting the Beavs aren't last place next season. Of course we will be in a much weaker conference. Has nothing to do with experience,, coaching, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Mar 23, 2024 19:18:21 GMT -8
LOL... new excuses. Most people know age has little to do with overall NCAA success. "Old" team lose to "young" teams ALL the time... regular season and post. San Diego State (23.0) trounced by UConn (21.3) Who has more "experience" a Soph who played 95% of the minutes over two seasons or a 5th years Sr who barley saw the floor his first three seasons? OSU had lots of game/minutes played returning and in the same system. Is years in the same system mean more than just a player's age of say someone transferring in? Far too many variables to even try to justify age as a reason for these last three seasons. Plus... part of being an "old" team is the ability to actually keep players in the program. Hmmmmm... OSU averaged about 21 (20.7 as far as I can tell with limited bdays listed) years of age... older than several top 25 teams. OSU had more game experience than say Arizona's 2023 NCAA tourney team of 0.52. Point blank the program is not in good shape and "age" isn't the reason. For every "old" team you can find I can find team younger than excelled. There is one reason and one reason ONLY for the state of the program... I dont think it is an excuse and I don't think that poster was using it as an excuse. When we are trying to find positives, that is one. It is a reason to be optimistic. This is not a quote, but my remembrance of something that Mike Riley said. He said something like my 22-year-old three-star recruits will beat USC's 19-year-old five-star recruits. In football it's different as those now 22-year-olds don't need to take meaningful snaps their first two years as they have older, more mature guys in front of them. They have three years to gain body size, experience and treachery. Then they smack the heck out of those guys that will have nice NFL careers. In basketball, this is the model I associate with Missouri Valley and Southern Conference teams. They get three of four freshmen together and start planning for when they are juniors and seniors. In Wichita State's 2014 season, when they got a 1-seed, their top eight players were four seniors, two juniors, and two sophomores. The next year they got a 7-seed and made the sweet 16 with two seniors and three juniors. The freshman with the most minutes averaged 13 minutes. Next season, 2016, another sweet 16 from an 11-seed. That team had four seniors and four sophomores carrying the load. A freshman did average 18 minutes. 2017 - a ten-seed and a round of 32 loss to Kentucky. Interestingly no seniors, but seven juniors, a soph and a freshman led the way. Anyway, I think Gregg Marshall is clearly a better coach than W.Tinkle. But saying that, we have some hope for next year and this is not being used as an excuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 23, 2024 20:35:37 GMT -8
Ducks earned us $2 million and Wazzu $2 million. That's enough, glad they lost.
Colorado and Arizona can still get us some more moolah.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 23, 2024 22:44:48 GMT -8
LOL... new excuses. Most people know age has little to do with overall NCAA success. "Old" team lose to "young" teams ALL the time... regular season and post. San Diego State (23.0) trounced by UConn (21.3) Who has more "experience" a Soph who played 95% of the minutes over two seasons or a 5th years Sr who barley saw the floor his first three seasons? OSU had lots of game/minutes played returning and in the same system. Is years in the same system mean more than just a player's age of say someone transferring in? Far too many variables to even try to justify age as a reason for these last three seasons. Plus... part of being an "old" team is the ability to actually keep players in the program. Hmmmmm... OSU averaged about 21 (20.7 as far as I can tell with limited bdays listed) years of age... older than several top 25 teams. OSU had more game experience than say Arizona's 2023 NCAA tourney team of 0.52. Point blank the program is not in good shape and "age" isn't the reason. For every "old" team you can find I can find team younger than excelled. There is one reason and one reason ONLY for the state of the program... Great anecdotal fallacy. The 10 oldest teams in Division 1 each are ranked 137 or better in Ken Pom. Nine of the 10 either made the Tournament or were invited to the NIT. North Carolina has the fourth-oldest team. #1 seed. Sweet Sixteen. Most dominate team in the Tournament so for. Seventh-oldest James Madison "upset" Wisconsin. NC State is also very old and has already punched their ticket to the Sweet Sixteen. Oregon State was 10th in the Pac-12 in average age in 2023-24. |
|
