|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on May 17, 2022 7:20:25 GMT -8
From what I see if you go to the page the league website has listed as Pac 12 Conference Champions pac-12.com/content/mens-basketball-pac-12-championships it lists the conference champions going back over 100 years. This list includes both regular season and tournament champs and does not say anywhere the regular season winner is THE champion. Saying both are the champion is probably “more correct” than only the regular season winner is the champion since it is after all the list of conference champs. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on May 17, 2022 7:25:33 GMT -8
From what I see if you go to the page the league website has listed as Pac 12 Conference Champions pac-12.com/content/mens-basketball-pac-12-championships it lists the conference champions going back over 100 year. This list includes both regular season and tournament champs and does not say anywhere the regular season winner is THE champion. Saying both are the champion is probably “more correct” than only the regular season winner is the champion since it is after all the list of conference champs. The conference has historically recognized the regular season champ as the conference champ. There are some smaller conferences that recognize the tourney champ as the conference champ, which seems really odd to me if you went into the tourney with a losing record and then managed to win it. We were Co-Champs in 1990, as the conference did not have a tie-breaker rule back then. I still see the list on the website as showing the conference champ and the conference tournament champ. Two very different things. The trophy for the regular season champ says Pac 12 Champs. The trophy for the tournament champ says Pac 12 Tournament Champs. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on May 17, 2022 9:15:51 GMT -8
Champs is Champs.
The conference tourney is new. The league lists winners of both as Championship teams.
It's sad that we have posters who diminish the Elite 8 appearance as just a matter of getting hot and winning 3 games, or the tournament championship as just a matter of getting hot and winning 3 games.
Fact is the Beavers had a 10 game stretch that they won 9 games, 6 of those were over teams that played in he NCAA tournament. That was not a matter of a bad team getting lucky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on May 17, 2022 9:39:04 GMT -8
Champs is Champs. The conference tourney is new. The league lists winners of both as Championship teams. It's sad that we have posters who diminish the Elite 8 appearance as just a matter of getting hot and winning 3 games, or the tournament championship as just a matter of getting hot and winning 3 games. Fact is the Beavers had a 10 game stretch that they won 9 games, 6 of those were over teams that played in he NCAA tournament. That was not a matter of a bad team getting lucky. I'm not diminishing anything. We just did not win a conference championship. It was still a great run. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 17, 2022 9:41:07 GMT -8
Champs is Champs. The conference tourney is new. The league lists winners of both as Championship teams. It's sad that we have posters who diminish the Elite 8 appearance as just a matter of getting hot and winning 3 games, or the tournament championship as just a matter of getting hot and winning 3 games. Fact is the Beavers had a 10 game stretch that they won 9 games, 6 of those were over teams that played in he NCAA tournament. That was not a matter of a bad team getting lucky. LOL... actually it was just that... a team getting hot at the right time and some opponents not so much. That's pretty much the story of every tournament run... getting hot at the right time. "Luck"... depends on how you want to define it. But, that OSU team played far above the level it did for the first 26 games, ending by getting crushed by the ucks at Gill. Did it happen? Yep. Was that level of play evident the entire season? Nope. Has that level of play been the norm in WT's tenure? Not close. Most fans want a consistently competitive Pac12 MBB team. We don't/haven't had one. Paint your portrait however you'd like, the Pac12 record is EXACTLY what it says. And, comparing WT to past coaches, or saying the financial commitment is a reason (when schools at every level pay/invest less) to say the future can't be different is the mentality of a habitual loser. There is no guarantee in any phase of life that change will be better. But, most keep striving for better and not simply give up the search for it. The funny thing is those that say the university isn't totally committed to men's hoops are right in one respect... they keep an inferior coach around so they do not have to invest more! Raise expectations, you raise fan excitement and donations, which increases fan expectations and forces the university to look at their commitment level. IMHO WT is only still here because OSU can't afford to upgrade. It's one sport at a time and the E8 run was able to stave off some of the big donors. Baseball is on more than solid footing, WBB stumbling but still very competitive, football gaining traction and has a huge stadium investment, and other "minor sports" are needing some attention. OSU simply can't address another major sport at this time. So many fans like me have to hope an almost complete roster turnover will result in some kind of improvement in Pac12 play until once again hoops becomes a AD priority. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 17, 2022 11:57:53 GMT -8
Champs is Champs. The conference tourney is new. The league lists winners of both as Championship teams. It's sad that we have posters who diminish the Elite 8 appearance as just a matter of getting hot and winning 3 games, or the tournament championship as just a matter of getting hot and winning 3 games. Fact is the Beavers had a 10 game stretch that they won 9 games, 6 of those were over teams that played in he NCAA tournament. That was not a matter of a bad team getting lucky. LOL... actually it was just that... a team getting hot at the right time and some opponents not so much. That's pretty much the story of every tournament run... getting hot at the right time. "Luck"... depends on how you want to define it. But, that OSU team played far above the level it did for the first 26 games, ending by getting crushed by the ucks at Gill. Did it happen? Yep. Was that level of play evident the entire season? Nope. Has that level of play been the norm in WT's tenure? Not close. Most fans want a consistently competitive Pac12 MBB team. We don't/haven't had one. Paint your portrait however you'd like, the Pac12 record is EXACTLY what it says. And, comparing WT to past coaches, or saying the financial commitment is a reason (when schools at every level pay/invest less) to say the future can't be different is the mentality of a habitual loser. There is no guarantee in any phase of life that change will be better. But, most keep striving for better and not simply give up the search for it. The funny thing is those that say the university isn't totally committed to men's hoops are right in one respect... they keep an inferior coach around so they do not have to invest more! Raise expectations, you raise fan excitement and donations, which increases fan expectations and forces the university to look at their commitment level. IMHO WT is only still here because OSU can't afford to upgrade. It's one sport at a time and the E8 run was able to stave off some of the big donors. Baseball is on more than solid footing, WBB stumbling but still very competitive, football gaining traction and has a huge stadium investment, and other "minor sports" are needing some attention. OSU simply can't address another major sport at this time. So many fans like me have to hope an almost complete roster turnover will result in some kind of improvement in Pac12 play until once again hoops becomes a AD priority. 8-10, 9-9, 7-11, 10-8, 7-11 and 10-10 is not competitive in conference? That is uncompetitive, when Oregon State is getting outspent by 9 of 11 programs in conference? I disagree. Until you bridge the gap with money between Oregon State and the other Pac-12 programs, you aren't going to see anyone consistently win more than five or six conference games every year. Tinkle has pretty consistently (two big exceptions) done more with less. The only thing that you will accomplish by chasing Tinkle out of town is that Barnesy will find someone to do less with less. Zero fan excitement and no donations. During the Revolutionary War, there were many calls to replace George Washington, because he was not doing enough with the meager resources that he had been allocated. During Riley's tenure, there were many calls to replace Riley with a big talker like GAG, because Riley was not doing enough with the meager resources that he had been allocated. During Tinkle's tenure, there are many calls to replace Tinkle with............. I personally want to see what Tinkle can do with at least two healthy big men. Silva was the only player on the team this year with a positive +/-. When Silva was in, the Beavers did well. When Silva was out, Oregon State did not have a legitimate center. In the end, I am a Beavers and Cubs fan. There's always next year. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 17, 2022 17:56:53 GMT -8
When we picked up WT from Montana, I immediately thought of Mike Montgomery, who translated his success at Montana into similar success at Stanford....and these recent "revelations" about WT and team dynamics made me wonder..... But the Big Sky seems to be slightly different, and I am wondering if it also accommodates different coaching approaches. Players at the Big Sky level seem less likely to be destined for the NBA (Damian Lilliard aside - and note, I am just basing this on the theory that "if you are recognized to have NBA potential, you are probably at one of the more visible "feeder" schools). So players at that level might be more interested in team success than personal success? So they get along better and require less coaching intervention in team dynamics? If there are fewer one-and-dones at the Big Sky level, then perhaps players there are more interested in studies and by extension are more adept at managing themselves? Perhaps Montgomery had some of the same going on at Stanford where you have to be somewhat academically inclined to get in? So perhaps you can go lighter on some aspects of coaching because the players have a slightly different mindset? Success in the Big Sky is mostly driven by winning the tournament and getting the automatic bid. So teams can focus on growing and developing during the season as long as travails early in the season translate into post-season success. Peak at the right time, and get the bid, otherwise you are probably headed to the NIT? I guess I could see if any of this would apply to other Big Sky to Big League coaching moves (Jud Heathcoate and LarryK come to mind). I am just trying to figure out why WT hasn't been "more" successful. There are obviously myriad reasons, but I guess in the off season I am far less frustrated at the season and can have some idle thoughts. Go Beavers! Its going back a long time but Don Monson never had a team at Oregon as good as his best teams at Idaho. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 17, 2022 18:11:57 GMT -8
When we picked up WT from Montana, I immediately thought of Mike Montgomery, who translated his success at Montana into similar success at Stanford....and these recent "revelations" about WT and team dynamics made me wonder..... But the Big Sky seems to be slightly different, and I am wondering if it also accommodates different coaching approaches. Players at the Big Sky level seem less likely to be destined for the NBA (Damian Lilliard aside - and note, I am just basing this on the theory that "if you are recognized to have NBA potential, you are probably at one of the more visible "feeder" schools). So players at that level might be more interested in team success than personal success? So they get along better and require less coaching intervention in team dynamics? If there are fewer one-and-dones at the Big Sky level, then perhaps players there are more interested in studies and by extension are more adept at managing themselves? Perhaps Montgomery had some of the same going on at Stanford where you have to be somewhat academically inclined to get in? So perhaps you can go lighter on some aspects of coaching because the players have a slightly different mindset? Success in the Big Sky is mostly driven by winning the tournament and getting the automatic bid. So teams can focus on growing and developing during the season as long as travails early in the season translate into post-season success. Peak at the right time, and get the bid, otherwise you are probably headed to the NIT? I guess I could see if any of this would apply to other Big Sky to Big League coaching moves (Jud Heathcoate and LarryK come to mind). I am just trying to figure out why WT hasn't been "more" successful. There are obviously myriad reasons, but I guess in the off season I am far less frustrated at the season and can have some idle thoughts. Go Beavers! Its going back a long time but Don Monson never had a team at Oregon as good as his best teams at Idaho. His teams at UO were in a bit tougher conference. Wonder what happens if you take his uck rosters and play in Idaho's league at that time?? |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 17, 2022 18:37:35 GMT -8
Its going back a long time but Don Monson never had a team at Oregon as good as his best teams at Idaho. His teams at UO were in a bit tougher conference. Wonder what happens if you take his uck rosters and play in Idaho's league at that time?? No need to wonder, Monson's Idaho teams beat oregon and OSU head to head. His '82 team went 27-3 and beat UO, OSU, WSU and UW during the regular season before losing to OSU in the NCAA Sweet 16. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 17, 2022 19:20:34 GMT -8
His teams at UO were in a bit tougher conference. Wonder what happens if you take his uck rosters and play in Idaho's league at that time?? No need to wonder, Monson's Idaho teams beat oregon and OSU head to head. His '82 team went 27-3 and beat UO, OSU, WSU and UW during the regular season before losing to OSU in the NCAA Sweet 16. Think you missed the point! Plus you seem to have left out his key losses to OSU... NCAA (losing badly after beating OSU by 22 in FWC) & NIT. Back to back years I believe. Back to my point, the Big Sky isn't the Pac8/10. Monson's (9) uck rosters would have fared very well at Idaho. You can't really say the same if reversed. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 17, 2022 21:43:09 GMT -8
No need to wonder, Monson's Idaho teams beat oregon and OSU head to head. His '82 team went 27-3 and beat UO, OSU, WSU and UW during the regular season before losing to OSU in the NCAA Sweet 16. Think you missed the point! Plus you seem to have left out his key losses to OSU... NCAA (losing badly after beating OSU by 22 in FWC) & NIT. Back to back years I believe. Back to my point, the Big Sky isn't the Pac8/10. Monson's (9) uck rosters would have fared very well at Idaho. You can't really say the same if reversed. None of Monson’s UO teams were by any objective measure, as good as his ‘82 UI team. That’s my point and I can’t be convinced otherwise so don’t bother trying. |
|
