|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Feb 25, 2017 6:48:55 GMT -8
Were on the sidelines at Gill Coliseum Friday night.
|
|
|
|
Post by stdyedy on Feb 25, 2017 7:01:04 GMT -8
ASU is #1 just ask her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Feb 25, 2017 7:30:44 GMT -8
Don't know what CTT thinks of Rueck but she played for Tara at Stanford so I'm sure there's plenty of respect there. |
|
|
|
Post by jefframp on Feb 25, 2017 8:57:22 GMT -8
No argument from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 25, 2017 11:34:12 GMT -8
Just put it real perspective though... there is the best/numero uno... and then Scott. Then a large gap to the rest.
Tara... has accomplished what only a very few have over a loooooong time.
I heard a few of her former players at a football tailgate a few years back. They basically said she coached basketball not to the sex... "she expected of us exactly what a men's coach would."
Seems blatantly obvious, but it has not been the case a lot of the time with girl's/ women's athletics.
I think Scott does the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Feb 25, 2017 14:12:27 GMT -8
Scott doesn't coach the women *anything* like a man's coach. And if a coach every really did coach ladies like men, he'd fail miserably. Tara obviously is a master at making ladies *feel* like they are being treated (respected?) like men. Which is a pretty good trick.
|
|
|
|
Post by jefframp on Feb 25, 2017 15:22:09 GMT -8
The reason I think Scott might be the better of the two would be because of which school is easier to recruit to. The opportunities and odds for a woman to make a decent living in this sport is pretty meager for most ladies. Much better odds with a degree from 'furd.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 25, 2017 15:46:16 GMT -8
Scott doesn't coach the women *anything* like a man's coach. And if a coach every really did coach ladies like men, he'd fail miserably. Tara obviously is a master at making ladies *feel* like they are being treated (respected?) like men. Which is a pretty good trick. He certainly does... he expects the same solid play and fundamentals that some thought women not capable... shooting 40% from the field or 50% from the line... being less physical... etc. Has nothing to HOW he interacts, its about basketball skill expectations... mentally and physically. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 25, 2017 15:50:57 GMT -8
The reason I think Scott might be the better of the two would be because of which school is easier to recruit to. The opportunities and odds for a woman to make a decent living in this sport is pretty meager for most ladies. Much better odds with a degree from 'furd. "Easier"? You think the number if elite women hoops players is any where near men? Now of those how many can get into Furd... even with a little "assist"? I love SR... but he has a very short resume and like OSU Furd women's hoops were an after thought. When Scott has the career close to hers I'd agree, but consistent excellence of that long trumps (sorry) what he's done from an objective (and I realize most aren't) stand point. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Feb 25, 2017 16:21:41 GMT -8
The reason I think Scott might be the better of the two would be because of which school is easier to recruit to. The opportunities and odds for a woman to make a decent living in this sport is pretty meager for most ladies. Much better odds with a degree from 'furd. "Easier"? You think the number if elite women hoops players is any where near men? Now of those how many can get into Furd... even with a little "assist"? I love SR... but he has a very short resume and like OSU Furd women's hoops were an after thought. When Scott has the career close to hers I'd agree, but consistent excellence of that long trumps (sorry) what he's done from an objective (and I realize most aren't) stand point. I think you could make the argument that women's BB at Sanford was an afterthought when she arrived, but it hasn't been lately. Rueck has had to recruit head to head against a coach that has gone to the NCAA tourney 23-24 straight years (sweet 16 or better all but 2 times) when he came in. They're up to 28 straight years now. VanDeveer didn't have to recruit against that. Furd can get all of the elite players (academically qualified ones anyways) it wants with that resume, Rueck has got a lot to recruit against. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 25, 2017 16:45:04 GMT -8
My point is... recruiting against elite programs is part of the job when you become a team in that stratosphere. You can't have both ways... he's a great coach period. But, anyone not wearing orange goggles knows Scott is not in her "league" considering the longevity of sustained excellence.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Feb 25, 2017 16:54:34 GMT -8
Here is another way to look at it. Which HC would you rather have leading your program right now? TV or SR? Right now today, I would take Scott. She has a better resume and may be a better coach...but with Scott's longer shelf life and resume he has already created, I would choose Rueck.
|
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Feb 25, 2017 17:00:01 GMT -8
Well Furd's coach had to start from the beginning too, and I don't think the Furd program was in the horrific dissaray that Scott had to deal with. Given that, if you want to compare year to year, Scott's off to a better start IMO, but we are going to have to wait a while before we can compare the full portfolio of his work vs what Tara has achieved - I thought that it was a great show of sportsmanship and recognition by the packed house in the extented standing ovation she got when it was announced that she had just achieved her 1000th (and still stuck on 1000th) victory in their last game.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 25, 2017 17:18:13 GMT -8
Here is another way to look at it. Which HC would you rather have leading your program right now? TV or SR? Right now today, I would take Scott. She has a better resume and may be a better coach...but with Scott's longer shelf life and resume he has already created, I would choose Rueck. Ones nearing the end of her career, Scott's just starting. Just him coaching as long as Tara is not a given in this day and age, let alone being as successful. Just my opinion... |
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Feb 25, 2017 18:39:50 GMT -8
Without question, Rueck is one of the two best in the conference and should be the run away favorite for Coach of the Year in the conference this season.
Scott applied for the job twice. We chose LaVonda Wagner over Rueck years before. Some folks just can't see winners - you know the people with the "it" factor and Bobby D couldn't see that Scott was a winner. Wagner ran the program into the ground, not because she was a bad coach, but because she was a bad person.
The program was radioactive at this point and few candidates were interested. Scott applied again despite getting rebuffed the first time around, and DeCarolis had little choice but to offer the position to him. He had a stellar tenure at a lower level school, winning a NCAA Division III national championship. If you get a chance, take a look at his opening press conference video after his hire - it is amazing.
He inherited a program that had one player that had ever played in a Division I basketball game, several soccer and volleyball players, and an assortment of tryout players. He won 9 games, including 2 wins over conference foes that season despite much worse circumstances than Tinkle faced this year. Given this huge hole, he's only had two losing seasons.
I've said since the start of his tenure at OSU that Scott was building a national powerhouse at OSU, but that claim led to many fights on the old Pure Orange board. Again, some folks cannot pick out the winners in this world and Scott is as good as it gets. For the hand-wringers out there, Scott's first love is OSU and has two OSU degrees. His players at George Fox said he used to take over the radio in the van trips so that he could listen to OSU football games. Come out to the games, support the program, and he'll take us as far as OSU can go. Why go anywhere else where you have a chance to be the best right where you want to be.
|
|
