2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,804
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Jul 18, 2018 22:23:16 GMT -8
I think that WT's biggest failing has been the failure to create an identity and culture around his program. He has had enough years to put something recognizable in place, but I just have not seen the carry over from year to year, the growth from year to year, the development from year to year to feel good about WT not feeling some warmth in his seat. I think we have a couple of programs that have developed that culture (baseball, WBB, gymnastics), some that are developing that culture (VB, SB) and some where the jury is still out (MBB, FB). Football has gone through its travails recently, so they get a mulligan on this list, but MBB has had the same staff at the helm long enough for a recognizable culture to emerge. I am not talking W/L record, though that should come with a successful culture. I am not talking post-season performance (to wit, Gymnastics seems to have developed this "under perform in the post season" culture though they get there consistently). I am talking about a recognizable product on and off the floor, a clear attitude and philosophy and approach that the team displays consistently. This is where folks can talk about injuries, departures, how the prior coach left things, etc, etc., but at the end of the day this is WT's program and he is ultimately accountable to develop, nurture and advance that culture. And I don't see enough of it yet. I also thinks that culture has a lot to do with attracting recruits who are looking for a certain environment to go along with PT and conference rep and major and geography..... That said, I think we have a set of coaches that are world class and I would be hard pressed to trade them for anyone (best examples are PC and SR), and then we have some emerging coaches (softball, volleyball), and then we have some serviceable coaches. I am not sure where I would put WT in that continuum, other than to say he has not displayed world-class acumen yet - and those of us old folks who were around 30 years ago have seen world class coaching in the MBB realm at OSU. And unless WT develops into a world-class coach, or his successor, those of us who saw the Ralph Miller era first hand may not see coaching of that level in MBB in their lifetimes (especially if we continue to find "on the job training" candidates).......and that is what I get concerned about.....
Go Beavers!
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 19, 2018 5:30:40 GMT -8
I don't see "building a culture" in 2-3 years. It took Casey the better part of 10 years. This will be the first year Tinkle has had ANY players in his system for 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jul 19, 2018 9:23:34 GMT -8
I don't see "building a culture" in 2-3 years. It took Casey the better part of 10 years. This will be the first year Tinkle has had ANY players in his system for 3 years. Equating baseball in the early PC years and MBB is quite a stretch. No P5 MBB coach is getting 10 years. PC and his "culture" has evolved even though the key components were constant from day one. But, PC was very close to not seeing the current fruition of his plan. Even seen as a minor sport, coaches don't often get that long to hover around/below. 500. The current culture around the baseball program has grown exponentially because... well, recruits turned out to be above average/good/great D1 players that were developed in the "PC mold"... and that drew more recruits. But, PC had a culture, a definite way he wanted the game played and the type of player that fit his "mold". WT shows no such "cultural development". And, yes... there should be evidence of "building" a program's culture no matter if its inherited players or your own. Since year 2 there have been insiders/players commenting on differential/different treatment. The player development, offensive and defensive schemes have not had any consistency, except for head scratching inconsistency and poor execution/fundamentals. A better example of WTs shortcomings is a comparison to SR/WBB. A program in shambles, few inherited players, campus tryouts, and an overall stronger conference nationally. But, from very, very early on SR stated his vision, worked toward implementing it, developed highly fundamental individuals/teams that fit his style/culture. Once established recruits see where they "fit" physically and emotionally. And, SR has then had the trust to be flexible and adapt while still holding to his core principles. That should be visible from the 1st practice. WT seems to be more than just random... more like grasping for straws at times. In the back of my mind it almost seems as though he thought the highly rated coach's kids would just draw other recruits?! But regardless, after this much time there should be definitive evidence of a "culture", it doesn't take 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 19, 2018 9:41:19 GMT -8
I'm not expecting ten years. I can honestly say they showed a good deal of improvement last year, and this year, now that he's got 3 years of his recruits in place, we should be seeing what a WT basketball program should be looking like.
My big question is if his offense shows any kind of a plan. I thought last year I was finally seeing something that made some sense at times. Previous years to me it looked to me like the plan was to waste 20 seconds and whoever had the ball then had 20 seconds to score. I don't call that an offense.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jul 19, 2018 13:22:12 GMT -8
I'm not expecting ten years. I can honestly say they showed a good deal of improvement last year, and this year, now that he's got 3 years of his recruits in place, we should be seeing what a WT basketball program should be looking like. My big question is if his offense shows any kind of a plan. I thought last year I was finally seeing something that made some sense at times. Previous years to me it looked to me like the plan was to waste 20 seconds and whoever had the ball then had 20 seconds to score. I don't call that an offense. Only disagree with this in that (1) the league was significantly weaker and any real improvement as a team (especially with Tres's season) should have led to more wins; (2) still highly inconsistent game to game and within the same game such as was the case in the previous seasons.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jul 19, 2018 13:41:20 GMT -8
I don't see "building a culture" in 2-3 years. It took Casey the better part of 10 years. This will be the first year Tinkle has had ANY players in his system for 3 years. Equating baseball in the early PC years and MBB is quite a stretch. No P5 MBB coach is getting 10 years. PC and his "culture" has evolved even though the key components were constant from day one. But, PC was very close to not seeing the current fruition of his plan. Even seen as a minor sport, coaches don't often get that long to hover around/below. 500. The current culture around the baseball program has grown exponentially because... well, recruits turned out to be above average/good/great D1 players that were developed in the "PC mold"... and that drew more recruits. But, PC had a culture, a definite way he wanted the game played and the type of player that fit his "mold". WT shows no such "cultural development". And, yes... there should be evidence of "building" a program's culture no matter if its inherited players or your own. Since year 2 there have been insiders/players commenting on differential/different treatment. The player development, offensive and defensive schemes have not had any consistency, except for head scratching inconsistency and poor execution/fundamentals. A better example of WTs shortcomings is a comparison to SR/WBB. A program in shambles, few inherited players, campus tryouts, and an overall stronger conference nationally. But, from very, very early on SR stated his vision, worked toward implementing it, developed highly fundamental individuals/teams that fit his style/culture. Once established recruits see where they "fit" physically and emotionally. And, SR has then had the trust to be flexible and adapt while still holding to his core principles. That should be visible from the 1st practice. WT seems to be more than just random... more like grasping for straws at times. In the back of my mind it almost seems as though he thought the highly rated coach's kids would just draw other recruits?! But regardless, after this much time there should be definitive evidence of a "culture", it doesn't take 10 years. Fun Fact: Scott Rueck went 39-55 in his first 3 years. Wayne Tinkle went 41-54. Rueck was 63-66 at the end of 4 and Tinkle is at 57-70. I think it is pretty strong revisionist history to say the average viewer saw a strong sense of Ruecks culture and philosophy when he was going 9-21 in year 1, or 10 and 21 in year 3... Rueck is a stud, and took off starting in year 4 and hasn't looked back. 5 straight NCAA appearance with no less than a 2nd round exit. Amazing. But come on, lets not pretend in the first couple years there were all these incredibly positive signs of impending success.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jul 19, 2018 14:06:02 GMT -8
Equating baseball in the early PC years and MBB is quite a stretch. No P5 MBB coach is getting 10 years. PC and his "culture" has evolved even though the key components were constant from day one. But, PC was very close to not seeing the current fruition of his plan. Even seen as a minor sport, coaches don't often get that long to hover around/below. 500. The current culture around the baseball program has grown exponentially because... well, recruits turned out to be above average/good/great D1 players that were developed in the "PC mold"... and that drew more recruits. But, PC had a culture, a definite way he wanted the game played and the type of player that fit his "mold". WT shows no such "cultural development". And, yes... there should be evidence of "building" a program's culture no matter if its inherited players or your own. Since year 2 there have been insiders/players commenting on differential/different treatment. The player development, offensive and defensive schemes have not had any consistency, except for head scratching inconsistency and poor execution/fundamentals. A better example of WTs shortcomings is a comparison to SR/WBB. A program in shambles, few inherited players, campus tryouts, and an overall stronger conference nationally. But, from very, very early on SR stated his vision, worked toward implementing it, developed highly fundamental individuals/teams that fit his style/culture. Once established recruits see where they "fit" physically and emotionally. And, SR has then had the trust to be flexible and adapt while still holding to his core principles. That should be visible from the 1st practice. WT seems to be more than just random... more like grasping for straws at times. In the back of my mind it almost seems as though he thought the highly rated coach's kids would just draw other recruits?! But regardless, after this much time there should be definitive evidence of a "culture", it doesn't take 10 years. Fun Fact: Scott Rueck went 39-55 in his first 3 years. Wayne Tinkle went 41-54. Rueck was 63-66 at the end of 4 and Tinkle is at 57-70. I think it is pretty strong revisionist history to say the average viewer saw a strong sense of Ruecks culture and philosophy when he was going 9-21 in year 1, or 10 and 21 in year 3... Rueck is a stud, and took off starting in year 4 and hasn't looked back. 5 straight NCAA appearance with no less than a 2nd round exit. Amazing. But come on, lets not pretend in the first couple years there were all these incredibly positive signs of impending success. If you were a casual observer and did not attend games regularly probably so. But, if you were there, heard him speak, and saw the development of young women who were for the most part not all D1 players in his first years... his vision was very evident. Believing/expecting it would lead to the current state is a different matter. But, the "culture" was apparent early on. And... again WT did NOT take over a program in the state WBB was in... But, as far as interesting #s... 2-9, 4-8, 0-13, 1-9 = 7-39 4-11, 2-9, 6-5, 9-2 = 20-30 Road records the 1st 4 years...
|
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,804
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Jul 19, 2018 21:15:55 GMT -8
I think it was obvious from Day 1 that SR was a great hire.
It would be disingenuous for anyone to say they could predict he would come so far so fast, but I think the culture started to be visible early on.
Go Beavers!
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 20, 2018 10:45:02 GMT -8
Equating baseball in the early PC years and MBB is quite a stretch. No P5 MBB coach is getting 10 years. PC and his "culture" has evolved even though the key components were constant from day one. But, PC was very close to not seeing the current fruition of his plan. Even seen as a minor sport, coaches don't often get that long to hover around/below. 500. The current culture around the baseball program has grown exponentially because... well, recruits turned out to be above average/good/great D1 players that were developed in the "PC mold"... and that drew more recruits. But, PC had a culture, a definite way he wanted the game played and the type of player that fit his "mold". WT shows no such "cultural development". And, yes... there should be evidence of "building" a program's culture no matter if its inherited players or your own. Since year 2 there have been insiders/players commenting on differential/different treatment. The player development, offensive and defensive schemes have not had any consistency, except for head scratching inconsistency and poor execution/fundamentals. A better example of WTs shortcomings is a comparison to SR/WBB. A program in shambles, few inherited players, campus tryouts, and an overall stronger conference nationally. But, from very, very early on SR stated his vision, worked toward implementing it, developed highly fundamental individuals/teams that fit his style/culture. Once established recruits see where they "fit" physically and emotionally. And, SR has then had the trust to be flexible and adapt while still holding to his core principles. That should be visible from the 1st practice. WT seems to be more than just random... more like grasping for straws at times. In the back of my mind it almost seems as though he thought the highly rated coach's kids would just draw other recruits?! But regardless, after this much time there should be definitive evidence of a "culture", it doesn't take 10 years. Fun Fact: Scott Rueck went 39-55 in his first 3 years. Wayne Tinkle went 41-54. Rueck was 63-66 at the end of 4 and Tinkle is at 57-70. I think it is pretty strong revisionist history to say the average viewer saw a strong sense of Ruecks culture and philosophy when he was going 9-21 in year 1, or 10 and 21 in year 3... Rueck is a stud, and took off starting in year 4 and hasn't looked back. 5 straight NCAA appearance with no less than a 2nd round exit. Amazing. But come on, lets not pretend in the first couple years there were all these incredibly positive signs of impending success. But, and this is undeniable, Tinkle is a lot taller.
|
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,000
|
Post by bill82 on Jul 20, 2018 12:06:46 GMT -8
I know it would be viewed as a hail Mary, but I'd like to see Rueck, if he is game, get a shot at the men's job. He could even slide in mid-season if necessary. He has some assistants that could take the lead on the women's program after his promotion. The women's game has advanced a lot in the last 20 years so his schemes should work with the men. If not, he is talented enough to make the adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by messi on Jul 20, 2018 12:09:24 GMT -8
Equating baseball in the early PC years and MBB is quite a stretch. No P5 MBB coach is getting 10 years. PC and his "culture" has evolved even though the key components were constant from day one. But, PC was very close to not seeing the current fruition of his plan. Even seen as a minor sport, coaches don't often get that long to hover around/below. 500. The current culture around the baseball program has grown exponentially because... well, recruits turned out to be above average/good/great D1 players that were developed in the "PC mold"... and that drew more recruits. But, PC had a culture, a definite way he wanted the game played and the type of player that fit his "mold". WT shows no such "cultural development". And, yes... there should be evidence of "building" a program's culture no matter if its inherited players or your own. Since year 2 there have been insiders/players commenting on differential/different treatment. The player development, offensive and defensive schemes have not had any consistency, except for head scratching inconsistency and poor execution/fundamentals. A better example of WTs shortcomings is a comparison to SR/WBB. A program in shambles, few inherited players, campus tryouts, and an overall stronger conference nationally. But, from very, very early on SR stated his vision, worked toward implementing it, developed highly fundamental individuals/teams that fit his style/culture. Once established recruits see where they "fit" physically and emotionally. And, SR has then had the trust to be flexible and adapt while still holding to his core principles. That should be visible from the 1st practice. WT seems to be more than just random... more like grasping for straws at times. In the back of my mind it almost seems as though he thought the highly rated coach's kids would just draw other recruits?! But regardless, after this much time there should be definitive evidence of a "culture", it doesn't take 10 years. Fun Fact: Scott Rueck went 39-55 in his first 3 years. Wayne Tinkle went 41-54. Rueck was 63-66 at the end of 4 and Tinkle is at 57-70. I think it is pretty strong revisionist history to say the average viewer saw a strong sense of Ruecks culture and philosophy when he was going 9-21 in year 1, or 10 and 21 in year 3... Rueck is a stud, and took off starting in year 4 and hasn't looked back. 5 straight NCAA appearance with no less than a 2nd round exit. Amazing. But come on, lets not pretend in the first couple years there were all these incredibly positive signs of impending success. One thing that helped Rueck tremendously early on with the fans, was winning the Civil War. It may have been just two games out of the entire season, but winning those games sends a message locally as to which program is better. And I have to admit, winning Civil Wars is the perfect antidote to lousy seasons for me.
|
|
|
Post by osubeaver2018 on Jul 20, 2018 17:54:26 GMT -8
Fun Fact: Scott Rueck went 39-55 in his first 3 years. Wayne Tinkle went 41-54. Rueck was 63-66 at the end of 4 and Tinkle is at 57-70. I think it is pretty strong revisionist history to say the average viewer saw a strong sense of Ruecks culture and philosophy when he was going 9-21 in year 1, or 10 and 21 in year 3... Rueck is a stud, and took off starting in year 4 and hasn't looked back. 5 straight NCAA appearance with no less than a 2nd round exit. Amazing. But come on, lets not pretend in the first couple years there were all these incredibly positive signs of impending success. One thing that helped Rueck tremendously early on with the fans, was winning the Civil War. It may have been just two games out of the entire season, but winning those games sends a message locally as to which program is better. And I have to admit, winning Civil Wars is the perfect antidote to lousy seasons for me. The men's team has had 2 resounding home Civil War wins in Tinkle's four years. It didn't help that their program was already established before Tink got here, it's been an uphill battle trying to keep pace with them in his tenure so far.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 20, 2018 18:58:07 GMT -8
I know it would be viewed as a hail Mary, but I'd like to see Rueck, if he is game, get a shot at the men's job. He could even slide in mid-season if necessary. He has some assistants that could take the lead on the women's program after his promotion. The women's game has advanced a lot in the last 20 years so his schemes should work with the men. If not, he is talented enough to make the adjustment. The only way Rueck steps in mid-season is if Tinkle and his top assistant both suddenly keel over and we have a chance at a decent season. After Tinkle gets hired by a bigger name basketball school that actually appreciates his accomplishments here in 2-4 years I'd like to see Rueck get serious consideration as well.
|
|