|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:05:18 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 1, 2017 13:05:18 GMT -8
No. Your example was of a freshman who has never even wrestled and an extremely poor analogy. Okay, fine. A freshman that lost every match vs. 8th graders the year before and only beat one 6th grader now going against the defending high school conference champion in his first match. How's that? You still think that match is good for the kids development as a wrestler? Because I do not. More importantly, I want someone to explain why doing what virtually every program does (get out of game they aren't ready for) is so controversial? Dude, as far as getting out of games we're not ready for... right now we might as well be asking the NCAA for a bye year. Next fall we could have a much more competitive team than we had last Saturday. It should be up to the team to try and get out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:08:47 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:08:47 GMT -8
Okay, fine. A freshman that lost every match vs. 8th graders the year before and only beat one 6th grader now going against the defending high school conference champion in his first match. How's that? You still think that match is good for the kids development as a wrestler? Because I do not. More importantly, I want someone to explain why doing what virtually every program does (get out of game they aren't ready for) is so controversial? Dude, as far as getting out of games we're not ready for... right now we might as well be asking the NCAA for a bye year. Next fall we could have a much more competitive team than we had last Saturday. It should be up to the team to try and get out. As someone that donates to the program I believe I have the right to voice my opinion and have done so by e-mailing Barnes. I agree, we will be more competitive and if Ohio State was scheduled for November, I'd be thinking differently. Its about it being game number one that is the problem in my view. You disagree, that doesn't make either of us wrong.
|
|
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:11:51 GMT -8
Post by Judge Smails on Dec 1, 2017 13:11:51 GMT -8
Dude, as far as getting out of games we're not ready for... right now we might as well be asking the NCAA for a bye year. Next fall we could have a much more competitive team than we had last Saturday. It should be up to the team to try and get out. As someone that donates to the program I believe I have the right to voice my opinion and have done so by e-mailing Barnes. I agree, we will be more competitive and if Ohio State was scheduled for November, I'd be thinking differently. Its about it being game number one that is the problem in my view. You disagree, that doesn't make either of us wrong. I respect your opinion, but if that is your stance, why would it be OK to play them a few games into the season?
Do you not think that they are going to get any better as the season goes along?
If you are going to play them at all, I would rather play them the first game before they get up to speed.
Remember Appalachian St. versus Michigan.....
|
|
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:16:44 GMT -8
Post by Werebeaver on Dec 1, 2017 13:16:44 GMT -8
No. Your example was of a freshman who has never even wrestled and an extremely poor analogy. Okay, fine. A freshman that lost every match vs. 8th graders the year before and only beat one 6th grader now going against the defending high school conference champion in his first match. How's that? You still think that match is good for the kids development as a wrestler? Because I do not. More importantly, I want someone to explain why doing what virtually every program does (get out of game they aren't ready for) is so controversial? I think you’ve made your case very thoroughly and with great passion. That said, I don’t think that anyone who has made travel plans to see the Beavs play in Columbus needs to worry about rescheduling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:19:26 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:19:26 GMT -8
As someone that donates to the program I believe I have the right to voice my opinion and have done so by e-mailing Barnes. I agree, we will be more competitive and if Ohio State was scheduled for November, I'd be thinking differently. Its about it being game number one that is the problem in my view. You disagree, that doesn't make either of us wrong. I respect your opinion, but if that is your stance, why would it be OK to play them a few games into the season?
Do you not think that they are going to get any better as the season goes along?
If you are going to play them at all, I would rather play them the first game before they get up to speed.
Remember Appalachian St. versus Michigan.....
Because once they have played games they will have already had some success (hopefully) which would help build confidence and trust in Smith's process making them better capable of rebounding from a bad loss. I also think they are more likely to play them closer a few games into the season (you seem to disagree with me on that) but at the end of the day its about building trust and confidence which I believe should be priority 1 for the 2018 season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:23:57 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:23:57 GMT -8
I agree, we will be more competitive and if Ohio State was scheduled for November, I'd be thinking differently. Its about it being game number one that is the problem in my view. You disagree, that doesn't make either of us wrong. You've lost your mind. Why? I believe I have explained why pretty clearly. Early season success is what this team needs. If they are gonna get blown out it ideally would e after some wins.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 1, 2017 13:27:18 GMT -8
I'd think we'd be MUCH better off playing them game 1 than game 3 or 4 or later. tOSU has us whooped on paper, game one introduces lots of wild cards into the mix that could act more in our favor than later in yhe season. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:29:37 GMT -8
Post by beaverdude on Dec 1, 2017 13:29:37 GMT -8
More importantly, I want someone to explain why doing what virtually every program does (get out of game they aren't ready for) is so controversial? How much of your vast personal fortune would you pay to buy out Ohio State and schedule Incarnate World? What is controversial about playing Ohio State in Columbus? 7-8 teams do that every season. Your interpretation is that its a payday game. I see it as motivation: we'll play anyone anywhere. Niner wants to change the atmosphere in Corvallis. Should that new attitude be "We won't play teams until we're ready" or "Come to Oregon State and play against the best"?
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Dec 1, 2017 13:30:30 GMT -8
@youngorst - I love this debate. Your reasons are valid and well thought out. I just disagree completely.
I'm going to for sake of argument move the Ohio State game to the third week of the season. After beating SUU 42-17 and Nevada 31-10, Oregon State and their undefeated head coach head to Ohio State feeling confident.
They lose 66-3.
Up next: Khalil Tate and Arizona.
Now, would you rather be going into a game vs. SUU after getting waxed, or Arizona? Personally I'd rather get the ass kicking over, lick our wounds and get right vs. SUU and Nevada before going into conference play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:34:19 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:34:19 GMT -8
Why? I believe I have explained why pretty clearly. Early season success is what this team needs. If they are gonna get blown out it ideally would e after some wins. That you'd rather play them in November, then it would be just fine with you (not that a Nov. OOC game with them would ever be scheduled to begin with). The best time is always the very first game.
No, I didn't say November would be the best time, ideally it would be game 2 but the very first game is never the best time in my opinion. OSU should always be playing a guaranteed win at home in their 1st game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:35:12 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:35:12 GMT -8
@youngorst - I love this debate. Your reasons are valid and well thought out. I just disagree completely. I'm going to for sake of argument move the Ohio State game to the third week of the season. After beating SUU 42-17 and Nevada 31-10, Oregon State and their undefeated head coach head to Ohio State feeling confident. They lose 66-3. Up next: Khalil Tate and Arizona. Now, would you rather be going into a game vs. SUU after getting waxed, or Arizona? Personally I'd rather get the ass kicking over, lick our wounds and get right vs. SUU and Nevada before going into conference play. As I said above, I'd rather it be week 2. Build confidence against SUU, then get right vs. Nevada. Which brings up another problem I have with this game, don't play 2 road OOC games coming off a 1-11 season but I don't need to start another debate so I'll let that go.
|
|
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:36:27 GMT -8
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 1, 2017 13:36:27 GMT -8
You've lost your mind. Why? I believe I have explained why pretty clearly. Early season success is what this team needs. If they are gonna get blown out it ideally would e after some wins. So, you do not believe in momentum then? Under Riley, Oregon State would get punched in the face and then tear off 7-8 wins. Unless the team is truly terrible, you learn nothing playing a bottom-feeder. Look at 2008. If Oregon State had not played Penn State, Oregon State would not have been nearly as successful. The game cemented Quizz as the unquestioned starter and positioned Oregon State for a run. The 2006 Boise State game (even though it was not a true body bag game) was another game that positioned Oregon State for a run. If the Beavers had played a lesser opponent, I do not think that Banker would have righted the ship in time to make a run in 2006.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 13:48:18 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:48:18 GMT -8
Why? I believe I have explained why pretty clearly. Early season success is what this team needs. If they are gonna get blown out it ideally would e after some wins. So, you do not believe in momentum then? Under Riley, Oregon State would get punched in the face and then tear off 7-8 wins. Unless the team is truly terrible, you learn nothing playing a bottom-feeder. Look at 2008. If Oregon State had not played Penn State, Oregon State would not have been nearly as successful. The game cemented Quizz as the unquestioned starter and positioned Oregon State for a run. The 2006 Boise State game (even though it was not a true body bag game) was another game that positioned Oregon State for a run. If the Beavers had played a lesser opponent, I do not think that Banker would have righted the ship in time to make a run in 2006. This team is truly terrible. I disagree with your belief that you learn nothing playing a bottom-feeder so since I can't even agree with that part of your post and since I can't prove a negative (that they would/could have been just as good if not better without the Penn State game) I really can't comment on the rest of your post. That said, I 100% believe that had they not agree to move the Stanford game to week 1 in 2008 Riley would have gotten a Rose Bowl bid so take that however you want from your momentum argument. I know Erickson didn't need/want these games and he won the conference without them (Had they played some power instead of Eastern Washington in OOC play we probably wouldn't have the Fiesta Bowl title). so like above you can reach your own conclusion on what that means.
|
|
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 14:08:19 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 1, 2017 14:08:19 GMT -8
The earlier our team plays tOSU the earlier they are motivated by that game alone. 1st game is always the best if coming in as a dramatic underdog. Work your ass off all spring and summer focused on this one event and maybe you'll surprise yourself and others. If you lose, take your lickings, learn and improve at the same time and you'll be much more prepared for everyone else...
or... take the easy route, build "confidence", and have your ass handed to you on a platter and realize the rest of the schedule really isn't that much easier front here on.
|
|
|
Anyone
Dec 1, 2017 14:11:37 GMT -8
Post by beavsaregood on Dec 1, 2017 14:11:37 GMT -8
Perhaps our new mottos should be: "Fear the challenge!" or "Follow the path of least resistance!" Nope, how bout? Schedule with a brain? When Bill Snyder came back to Kansas State, the first thing he did was get out of games he knew the program wasn't ready to play. And he isn't the only one, schools (even top schools) do this all the time. Its smart. You play Ohio State when your program is ready to play Ohio State. Playing them when they are not ready doesn't benefit the kids or the program in anyway beyond a paycheck. Okay. I understand. But, what's done is done. Just play it out. Look, we've been doing this forever. I have complained about scheduling tough mid-major away games/home and homes. Teams like Boise State, Fresno State, Louisville, Cincy, and TCU. The body bag games are needed I guess (LSU, PENN ST, MICHIGAN, OHIO STATE, ETC). Yes. Probably Barry Alvarez when he first started at WI scheduled easier OOC games. Bill Snyder at KState, too. I think OOC schedules should be easier when the team isn't good. The conference schedule is tough enough. Win all your OOC games, win a few conference games, and your in a bowl game. Baby steps. 7-5 record looks better than 6-6. 9-3 looks better than 8-4. i always thought MRs teams had tough(sometimes too tough) OOC games. But I guess he welcomed it. But, the schedule has been set. Just take it. I'm sure 9er will put a positive spin on this tOSU game. I like the home and home versus Oklahoma State in 2019.
|
|