|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jan 23, 2018 12:05:19 GMT -8
"I do have an intense dislike for the Duck's teams simply because they are in most cases "buying their success" with Phil Knight money." I'd like to know exactly what you mean by this, especially as it relates to women's sports. My experience with women's college sports says the college education and opportunity to play are the most important criteria for women receiving a scholarship offer. Like any athletic scholarship there are typically multiple factors that drive the final choice of which school to attend. For women, the "fit" with their teammates - people they will spend thousands of hours with over the course of 4 years is very important. Add the relationship with the coaching staff as a similar factor. From your post a person might conclude that those things do not matter to the women athletes at Oregon - that their decision to accept a scholarship from Oregon is more connected to the facilities and other tangible products of the athletic experience at Oregon. Is it possible for a female student-athlete to choose Oregon for the same reasons they choose a school like Washington State or Arizona State or Arizona. Certainly Oregon's women's basketball team does not have the recent cache' born from success that the OSU program has. And it is easy for any observer to see that OSU's recent success has helped feed their recruiting success. So why wouldn't an elite 8 run by Oregon be reason for a recruit to seriously consider that Oregon is at the beginning of a rise that OSU has already made? From published reports and talking heads, Kelly Graves does have a good reputation as a coach - and what has been built in the last 3 years is evidence that he can teach and coach and build a team that can win. I guess I don't understand why you can't appreciate the talent of the Oregon players and the coaching staff - respect their work. You can still "hate to lose to the Ducks", but that feeling does not require trying to demean the individuals by suggesting they are "bought and paid for" rather than hard-working people that are part of a team. You make the comment 'especially as it pertains to women's sports'. It's naïve to think that Nike money hasn't catapulted Oregon women's sports into top ten rankings in Volleyball, Basketball and Softball directly or indirectly. That's no fault of any Oregon fan. It's an advantage you have. I can't speak for all OSU fans but I'm sure there are some, including me, that have been shamed my whole life by friends for being a beaver fan and it stings when our baseball team wins two national titles after working for years of hard work under both Jack Riley and Pat Casey and Nike money directly influences not only the restart of a baseball program at UO but they are within the top ten in what? two or three years and our women's basketball team wins three pac 12 titles after Scott Rueck resurrects the program from utter chaos and then boom, Oregon's women's team in the blink of an eye has top recruiting classes and ranked in the top ten. For sure there is some bitterness there for some of us. I have the most respect for Rich Brooks and Mike White. They were very influential in the rise of their respective programs to a competitive level. After that, Nike money, gets the most credit IMHO. But again, it's not duck fan's fault, it is your advantage and no reason not to embrace it. There is plenty reason to just admit though. The whole conference despises the *ucks and I think OSU gets a lot of admiration for operating honorably and successfully in such close proximity to their fowl stench while fighting them in close contact. |
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Jan 23, 2018 12:51:02 GMT -8
"I do have an intense dislike for the Duck's teams simply because they are in most cases "buying their success" with Phil Knight money." I'd like to know exactly what you mean by this, especially as it relates to women's sports. My experience with women's college sports says the college education and opportunity to play are the most important criteria for women receiving a scholarship offer. Like any athletic scholarship there are typically multiple factors that drive the final choice of which school to attend. For women, the "fit" with their teammates - people they will spend thousands of hours with over the course of 4 years is very important. Add the relationship with the coaching staff as a similar factor. From your post a person might conclude that those things do not matter to the women athletes at Oregon - that their decision to accept a scholarship from Oregon is more connected to the facilities and other tangible products of the athletic experience at Oregon. Is it possible for a female student-athlete to choose Oregon for the same reasons they choose a school like Washington State or Arizona State or Arizona. Certainly Oregon's women's basketball team does not have the recent cache' born from success that the OSU program has. And it is easy for any observer to see that OSU's recent success has helped feed their recruiting success. So why wouldn't an elite 8 run by Oregon be reason for a recruit to seriously consider that Oregon is at the beginning of a rise that OSU has already made? From published reports and talking heads, Kelly Graves does have a good reputation as a coach - and what has been built in the last 3 years is evidence that he can teach and coach and build a team that can win. I guess I don't understand why you can't appreciate the talent of the Oregon players and the coaching staff - respect their work. You can still "hate to lose to the Ducks", but that feeling does not require trying to demean the individuals by suggesting they are "bought and paid for" rather than hard-working people that are part of a team. You make the comment 'especially as it pertains to women's sports'. It's naïve to think that Nike money hasn't catapulted Oregon women's sports into top ten rankings in Volleyball, Basketball and Softball directly or indirectly. That's no fault of any Oregon fan. It's an advantage you have. I can't speak for all OSU fans but I'm sure there are some, including me, that have been shamed my whole life by friends for being a beaver fan and it stings when our baseball team wins two national titles after working for years of hard work under both Jack Riley and Pat Casey and Nike money directly influences not only the restart of a baseball program at UO but they are within the top ten in what? two or three years and our women's basketball team wins three pac 12 titles after Scott Rueck resurrects the program from utter chaos and then boom, Oregon's women's team in the blink of an eye has top recruiting classes and ranked in the top ten. For sure there is some bitterness there for some of us. I have the most respect for Rich Brooks and Mike White. They were very influential in the rise of their respective programs to a competitive level. After that, Nike money, gets the most credit IMHO. But again, it's not duck fan's fault, it is your advantage and no reason not to embrace it. There is plenty reason though to just admit. I am fascinated by the hate (expressed by others in this thread) generated ... and I get the explanation in your post. My point is that the women that participate in sports at ANY D1 school have to work hard to develop a winning team. It does not matter whether you are a volleyball player at UW, or a basketball player at OSU, or a tennis player at UCLA - those athletes at the TOP of their game (e.g. highly recruited) STILL have to work to rise to the challenges in their competitive sports in the Pac12 to have their TEAM achieve success. So, when a team of women find success in basketball it is NOT because of how nice the facilities are ... the WORK REQUIRED, the execution as a team required, the coaching required is the same at every Pac12 school to compete with Stanford, UCLA and OSU in women's basketball. Why a fan of OSU women's basketball finds a need to diminish what athletes at Oregon achieve by characterizing them as "bought and paid for" - as if their efforts contribute nothing to the wins - is an unpleasant surprise to me. For women, the option to earn a living at any sport out of college is quite limited. If 2% of all men's basketball players find a limited career in professional basketball, I would imagine that the percentage is probably more like 0.5% for women. What that says is that women competing in collegiate athletics are doing so for the love of the game - they truly are student-athletes. So, why can't we view them in that context instead of hate for a school? |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jan 23, 2018 13:01:11 GMT -8
You make the comment 'especially as it pertains to women's sports'. It's naïve to think that Nike money hasn't catapulted Oregon women's sports into top ten rankings in Volleyball, Basketball and Softball directly or indirectly. That's no fault of any Oregon fan. It's an advantage you have. I can't speak for all OSU fans but I'm sure there are some, including me, that have been shamed my whole life by friends for being a beaver fan and it stings when our baseball team wins two national titles after working for years of hard work under both Jack Riley and Pat Casey and Nike money directly influences not only the restart of a baseball program at UO but they are within the top ten in what? two or three years and our women's basketball team wins three pac 12 titles after Scott Rueck resurrects the program from utter chaos and then boom, Oregon's women's team in the blink of an eye has top recruiting classes and ranked in the top ten. For sure there is some bitterness there for some of us. I have the most respect for Rich Brooks and Mike White. They were very influential in the rise of their respective programs to a competitive level. After that, Nike money, gets the most credit IMHO. But again, it's not duck fan's fault, it is your advantage and no reason not to embrace it. There is plenty reason though to just admit. I am fascinated by the hate (expressed by others in this thread) generated ... and I get the explanation in your post. My point is that the women that participate in sports at ANY D1 school have to work hard to develop a winning team. It does not matter whether you are a volleyball player at UW, or a basketball player at OSU, or a tennis player at UCLA - those athletes at the TOP of their game (e.g. highly recruited) STILL have to work to rise to the challenges in their competitive sports in the Pac12 to have their TEAM achieve success. So, when a team of women find success in basketball it is NOT because of how nice the facilities are ... the WORK REQUIRED, the execution as a team required, the coaching required is the same at every Pac12 school to compete with Stanford, UCLA and OSU in women's basketball. Why a fan of OSU women's basketball finds a need to diminish what athletes at Oregon achieve by characterizing them as "bought and paid for" - as if their efforts contribute nothing to the wins - is an unpleasant surprise to me. For women, the option to earn a living at any sport out of college is quite limited. If 2% of all men's basketball players find a limited career in professional basketball, I would imagine that the percentage is probably more like 0.5% for women. What that says is that women competing in collegiate athletics are doing so for the love of the game - they truly are student-athletes. So, why can't we view them in that context instead of hate for a school? Blah, blah, blah blah.. This was bound to happen. eDuck folds its tent and loudmouth *ucks start infesting other teams’ boards trying to find a pond to defecate in. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Jan 23, 2018 13:19:25 GMT -8
Great comment! I am not suggesting anything "illegal" by the Ducks. They just have way more $$$ resources than the Beavers for all sorts of things that directly and indirectly benefit every one of their sports programs.
Plus every time the Beavers do well at something (Baseball, women's basketball, etc.)clearly the Ducks are just like the rich kid we all hated growing up. The kid who every time some other child had a new bike, he would have his parents go out and buy him a better one. Another example would be if a kid at school went on a nice vacation and told his classmates about it, the rich kid would whine to his parents until they took him on a fancier, more expensive vacation.
|
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Jan 23, 2018 13:45:36 GMT -8
Great comment! I am not suggesting anything "illegal" by the Ducks. They just have way more $$$ resources than the Beavers for all sorts of things that directly and indirectly benefit every one of their sports programs. Plus every time the Beavers do well at something (Baseball, women's basketball, etc.)clearly the Ducks are just like the rich kid we all hated growing up. The kid who every time some other child had a new bike, he would have his parents go out and buy him a better one. Another example would be if a kid at school went on a nice vacation and told his classmates about it, the rich kid would whine to his parents until they took him on a fancier, more expensive vacation. Under Jodie Rungie the Ducks had success in women's basketball. The Ducks have had a women's basketball team as long as OSU has had one. It is not analogous to the baseball example in any way. [BTW, you might recall that "Nike money" (e.g. Phil & Penny Knight) helped OSU keep Pat Casey]. The facilities ... locker room, weight room, student scholastic support ... do not shoot baskets or run lines or kick soccer balls or hit tennis balls, etc. If you think that is the ONLY reason that recruiting in women's basketball at Oregon has improved, then I guess I'll accept the fact that you have a narrow view of what contributes to success. Athletes at Oregon don't have to work to get better or compete - they are simply great because the building and equipment is shiny and new. Thomas Tyner was not a hard-working athlete and person at Oregon - he was bought and paid for. But when he transferred to OSU he became a blue-collar hard-working athlete and great person. I get it. |
|
|
|
Post by gnawitall on Jan 23, 2018 13:45:51 GMT -8
And applying at Nike upon graduation with Oregon as your school of reference doesn't effect a recruit's consideration? I don't deny that's a good move.
I wonder if Sabrina will get any Nike deals when she turns pro?
I'm sure she will anyway but it's nice to be a child of the heir instead of a distant cousin :-)
I think me and other beaver fans want duck fans to just admit it. Be happy for your sports but don't give us the hard work song and dance. I'm sure the majority of D1 kids work hard and if you are a 4 or 5 star kid you'll just be even better. Now, how do you get them to come to your school?
Ok Glove... Sorry for continuing this thread. I'm out.
|
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Jan 23, 2018 13:55:31 GMT -8
I am fascinated by the hate (expressed by others in this thread) generated ... and I get the explanation in your post. h, blah, blah blah.. This was bound to happen. eDuck folds its tent and loudmouth *ucks start infesting other teams’ boards trying to find a pond to defecate in. Pathetic. I have been posting here since the other two Beaver boards faded away. I am not new here since eDuck combined with Duck Territory. I rarely post here. I do try not to soil the board. Can you provide insight regarding what you find so distasteful about a post that encourages respect and admiration for hard-working women athletes? |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jan 23, 2018 15:19:24 GMT -8
This was bound to happen. eDuck folds its tent and loudmouth *ucks start infesting other teams’ boards trying to find a pond to defecate in. Pathetic. I have been posting here since the other two Beaver boards faded away. I am not new here since eDuck combined with Duck Territory. I rarely post here. I do try not to soil the board. Can you provide insight regarding what you find so distasteful about a post that encourages respect and admiration for hard-working women athletes? How do we know they're hard-working? McGwire and Hebard both look like they could benefit from more conditioning work. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeblood on Jan 23, 2018 15:32:07 GMT -8
If duck fans are going to be allowed to post here, this board is going to lose any value it has for me very quickly. I understand that this is not my board, so that is the decision I make. It's up to the owner of the board to make the rules for the board. I simply do not want to swim in the same water as ducks.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 23, 2018 15:48:36 GMT -8
If duck fans are going to be allowed to post here, this board is going to lose any value it has for me very quickly. I understand that this is not my board, so that is the decision I make. It's up to the owner of the board to make the rules for the board. I simply do not want to swim in the same water as ducks. This ^^^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jan 23, 2018 17:20:08 GMT -8
On Nike money buying U of O success. Graves was bought out from Gonzaga for a nice chunk of change and as a condition of his hire they bought OSU's top recruiter Mark Campbell for slightly less money than Rueck was being paid at the time. Yes, Nike buys U of O winning programs, but that's not a reflection on the players. Ion however tends toward being a flopper and a whiner, neither qualities that I am very fond of.
|
|
mb
Freshman
Posts: 404 
|
Post by mb on Jan 23, 2018 18:23:57 GMT -8
I have been posting here since the other two Beaver boards faded away. I am not new here since eDuck combined with Duck Territory. I rarely post here. I do try not to soil the board. Can you provide insight regarding what you find so distasteful about a post that encourages respect and admiration for hard-working women athletes? How do we know they're hard-working? McGwire and Hebard both look like they could benefit from more conditioning work. Speaking of McGwire, I found out yesterday that her dad is Dan McGwire who was the 6' 8" QB who played at San Diego State and was drafted and played for the SeaHawks. Of course that makes her uncle, Mark the Juicer. |
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Jan 23, 2018 19:19:41 GMT -8
If people here are pressed about the ducks having funds for better athletics, they need to get over themselves. They will be fighting a lifelong battle if the money situation is irritating.
Not even UO is at the top of the college ranks, and just about every school (other than us apparently) has much much bigger dough to work with.
Not an excuse really, as we have been competitive in lots of sports without it. Before you pat yourselves in the back for being an honorable poor school with good sports, we're also not the only ones in the pond.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jan 23, 2018 19:36:23 GMT -8
If people here are pressed about the ducks having funds for better athletics, they need to get over themselves. They will be fighting a lifelong battle if the money situation is irritating. Not even UO is at the top of the college ranks, and just about every school (other than us apparently) has much much bigger dough to work with. Not an excuse really, as we have been competitive in lots of sports without it. Before you pat yourselves in the back for being an honorable poor school with good sports, we're also not the only ones in the pond. “We”? |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jan 23, 2018 19:47:14 GMT -8
If duck fans are going to be allowed to post here, this board is going to lose any value it has for me very quickly. I understand that this is not my board, so that is the decision I make. It's up to the owner of the board to make the rules for the board. I simply do not want to swim in the same water as ducks. Bye! |
|
