|
Post by nforkbeav on Dec 19, 2017 18:37:52 GMT -8
Just point to the completed Valley Center. No question that facility is superior to the one Andersen inherited. PS: Jim Wilson is not the "media." He's an OSU contract employee. I also find him to be a knowledgeable and generally very candid analyst. Certainly the facilities are in better shape than what he inherited. But Jim very specifically noted "the program" was in better shape. I'd argue that some better buildings don't trump the decline in wins, attendance, actual players (we have exactly 4 DL on the roster who have played a down of college football), and the general perception of the program itself. By my count, we will have only 3 returning DT's going into next season. Here's to hoping there's another Stephen Peaeai at a Juco somewhere waiting for a Beaver offer.
|
|
|
Post by beaverbeliever on Dec 19, 2017 20:07:55 GMT -8
The program was Top 50 when he got it, and in 2017 it was arguably the worst team in FBS. I was going to argue with you that we can't be the worst when Kansas is still around but then did a quick google to double check I wasn't making a fool out of myself if they turned thing around. Found out that while Kansas still has a much longer road losing streak then us (40 games) they actually won a game against Texas so yes they are arguably better than us. I hate myself now. Not that it's worth much, but Kansas' win over Texas was in 2016. They are definitely the worst Power-5 program and have been for some time.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 20, 2017 11:56:59 GMT -8
I was going to argue with you that we can't be the worst when Kansas is still around but then did a quick google to double check I wasn't making a fool out of myself if they turned thing around. Found out that while Kansas still has a much longer road losing streak then us (40 games) they actually won a game against Texas so yes they are arguably better than us. I hate myself now. Not that it's worth much, but Kansas' win over Texas was in 2016. They are definitely the worst Power-5 program and have been for some time. Worst Power 5 teams: 2017: 1. Kansas 2. Oregon State 3. Illinois 4. Brigham Young 5. Baylor 6. Rutgers 7. Tennessee 8. Vanderbilt 9. Nebraska 10. Maryland
2016:
1. Rutgers 2. Kansas 3. Purdue 4. Illinois 5. Arizona 6. Arizona State 7. South Carolina 8. Missouri 9. Maryland 10. Oregon State
2015:
1. Kansas 2. Oregon State 3. Rutgers 4. Purdue 5. Colorado 6. Maryland 7. Kentucky 8. Boston College 9. South Carolina 10. Minnesota
Kansas is undoubtedly the worst Power 5 team and have been the worst Power 5 team for the better part of a decade. The Jayhawks' last bowl game was in 2008 at the Insight Bowl, back when that was still a thing. 2009 was Kansas' last 4+ win season. Since? 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 0, 2, and 1 wins. 15-81. A .156 winning percentage. The Jayhawks only beat SE Missouri State this year at home. All other games were 10+ point losses. Kansas owns a 46-game road winning streak and a 49-game losing streak away from Lawrence.
Over the past three years, Rutgers is the only team that has arguably been worse than Oregon State, but the Knights appear to be righting the ship, under second-year coach, Chris Ash.
Oregon State is second or third.
|
|
|
Post by calder on Dec 20, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -8
I don't think pointing to donors remodeling a football building is what is meant by leaving the program better than he found it. Bricks and mortar don't develop game plans, recruit players or go to bowl games. That project was likely getting done no matter who replaced Riley. One renovated building does not make up for completely tearing down a program's 20 years of development, rivaling the early 1980's for perhaps the worst team in program history. Or switching to a 3-4 defense just because, even though you don't have the personnel to run it, and still didn't three years into his tenure. Switching to a spread offense even though you don't have the personnel to run it, then change your offense in year 2, then change your offense in year 3. Running off the better players, not recruiting well, hiring an incompetent staff, over-paying for a overrated DC that left after one year. And of course, couldn't win a road game in three years. The program was Top 50 when he got it, and in 2017 it was arguably the worst team in FBS. Those are not symptoms of leaving it better than was inherited, it is the result of taking a program backwards into the depths of a Beaver football hell that we thought we escaped. That was something that fell off and it was something that Gary brought back. We didn't have problems with guys staying eligible academically. Getting eligible, sure. But staying eligible, that was handled. I have a friend who works in the Student\Athletes administration. His take was that Riley recruited a much higher class of person but on the other hand was much more hands off on the player academically. As long as the player was within the rules of NCAA eligibility he didn't get on the player much. Anderson on the other hand recruited some real "Projects" in terms of students. On the other hand he was all over them if they didn't do what they needed to graduate. (Note, I said graduate. Not just what was required by the NCAA.)
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Dec 20, 2017 15:00:42 GMT -8
Not that it's worth much, but Kansas' win over Texas was in 2016. They are definitely the worst Power-5 program and have been for some time. Worst Power 5 teams: 2017: 1. Kansas 2. Oregon State 3. Illinois 4. Brigham Young 5. Baylor 6. Rutgers 7. Tennessee 8. Vanderbilt 9. Nebraska 10. Maryland
2016:
1. Rutgers 2. Kansas 3. Purdue 4. Illinois 5. Arizona 6. Arizona State 7. South Carolina 8. Missouri 9. Maryland 10. Oregon State
2015:
1. Kansas 2. Oregon State 3. Rutgers 4. Purdue 5. Colorado 6. Maryland 7. Kentucky 8. Boston College 9. South Carolina 10. Minnesota
Kansas is undoubtedly the worst Power 5 team and have been the worst Power 5 team for the better part of a decade. The Jayhawks' last bowl game was in 2008 at the Insight Bowl, back when that was still a thing. 2009 was Kansas' last 4+ win season. Since? 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 0, 2, and 1 wins. 15-81. A .156 winning percentage. The Jayhawks only beat SE Missouri State this year at home. All other games were 10+ point losses. Kansas owns a 46-game road winning streak and a 49-game losing streak away from Lawrence.
Over the past three years, Rutgers is the only team that has arguably been worse than Oregon State, but the Knights appear to be righting the ship, under second-year coach, Chris Ash.
Oregon State is second or third.Are these your rankings Wilky? Are they from one of the computer rankings?
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Dec 20, 2017 16:33:38 GMT -8
That was something that fell off and it was something that Gary brought back. We didn't have problems with guys staying eligible academically. Getting eligible, sure. But staying eligible, that was handled. I have a friend who works in the Student\Athletes administration. His take was that Riley recruited a much higher class of person but on the other hand was much more hands off on the player academically. As long as the player was within the rules of NCAA eligibility he didn't get on the player much. Anderson on the other hand recruited some real "Projects" in terms of students. On the other hand he was all over them if they didn't do what they needed to graduate. (Note, I said graduate. Not just what was required by the NCAA.) I truly appreciate everything I’ve heard about Andersen in this area. For all of the things that shocked and frustrated me about him as a football coach (he REALLY fooled me in that respect) all accounts point to a guy with a legit committment to his players being STUDENT-athletes. Giving credit where it’s due, that’s a really good thing about him. I would be inauthenfic if I said that my #1 priority for our football team is for our guys to win scholastic achievement awards, but I do feel it’s important. If I were a purely humanitarian fan, I’d probably be 50/50 in terms of emphasis, meaning that each kid’s success in the classroom and receiving a degree is every bit as important to me as seeing them achieve their full potential on the football field. Truthfully though, it’s more like 60/40 (football/academics) for me. Unfortunately, the academic to athletic ratio sounds like it was more like 75/25 toward the end of Coach Riley’s time here as our head coach. However, that’s heaven compared to the 90/10 (academics/football) that we had here with Andersen. If we intend to truly compete in this conference - even with the stellar academic rep of the PAC 12, which is definitely #1 among Power 5 conferences - we can not afford to put more into academics than growth as an athlete. Both are important, but we need committed football players and quality teachers of the game here.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Dec 20, 2017 19:49:25 GMT -8
I have a friend who works in the Student\Athletes administration. His take was that Riley recruited a much higher class of person but on the other hand was much more hands off on the player academically. As long as the player was within the rules of NCAA eligibility he didn't get on the player much. Anderson on the other hand recruited some real "Projects" in terms of students. On the other hand he was all over them if they didn't do what they needed to graduate. (Note, I said graduate. Not just what was required by the NCAA.) I truly appreciate everything I’ve heard about Andersen in this area. For all of the things that shocked and frustrated me about him as a football coach (he REALLY fooled me in that respect) all accounts point to a guy with a legit committment to his players being STUDENT-athletes. Giving credit where it’s due, that’s a really good thing about him. I would be inauthenfic if I said that my #1 priority for our football team is for our guys to win scholastic achievement awards, but I do feel it’s important. If I were a purely humanitarian fan, I’d probably be 50/50 in terms of emphasis, meaning that each kid’s success in the classroom and receiving a degree is every bit as important to me as seeing them achieve their full potential on the football field. Truthfully though, it’s more like 60/40 (football/academics) for me. Unfortunately, the academic to athletic ratio sounds like it was more like 75/25 toward the end of Coach Riley’s time here as our head coach. However, that’s heaven compared to the 90/10 (academics/football) that we had here with Andersen. If we intend to truly compete in this conference - even with the stellar academic rep of the PAC 12, which is definitely #1 among Power 5 conferences - we can not afford to put more into academics than growth as an athlete. Both are important, but we need committed football players and quality teachers of the game here. I think it's admirable that Andersen achieved the results he did with the graduation rates. I really do. But I wonder. I wonder what the net result on the culture is when you run that kind of tight ship. See, the guys that I know and respect that played for Riley all kind of say the same thing - that Coach Riley treated you like a man. Treated you with respect and love and the worst thing in the world was for him to look at you with disappointment on his face. The ones who loved him would run through walls for him. And to be clear, that wasn't all of them. But it was a LOT of them. An overwhelming majority loved Coach Riley with all their hearts. What I'm hearing from people about Andersen's era is that Hardass Gary was a micromanager. You know what it's like to have a micromanager for a boss? I do. It's a trainwreck. People who micromanage are always looking to have *maximum effect* with their decisions. That's the point, they're running around giving direction to everyone else, trying to provide their "leadership" and "vision". The problem with that, is that of course they don't have the depth of knowledge the person who is running that group does. So basically they run around disrupting your development as a group and forcing you to chase your tail. And the worst kind doesn't have a strong vision, they keep changing direction. What I'm getting at is that I think the type of guy who will micromanage players attending class, even when that net result is the highest grad rates ever, the net result is negative for the damage that he does to the culture (players feeling like they are babysat, not treated like men) and the development of the position groups where he has disrupted their training process. Some disruption is good. Changing offenses once a year, I think we would all agree, is very bad. Anyway. Just random musings about how different personalities are leaders. I think we all really liked how Gary talked the talk in the beginning because we figured the team would play disciplined high effort football with talk like that, and it just didn't work out that way.. for myriad reasons.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 21, 2017 8:05:31 GMT -8
I truly appreciate everything I’ve heard about Andersen in this area. For all of the things that shocked and frustrated me about him as a football coach (he REALLY fooled me in that respect) all accounts point to a guy with a legit committment to his players being STUDENT-athletes. Giving credit where it’s due, that’s a really good thing about him. I would be inauthenfic if I said that my #1 priority for our football team is for our guys to win scholastic achievement awards, but I do feel it’s important. If I were a purely humanitarian fan, I’d probably be 50/50 in terms of emphasis, meaning that each kid’s success in the classroom and receiving a degree is every bit as important to me as seeing them achieve their full potential on the football field. Truthfully though, it’s more like 60/40 (football/academics) for me. Unfortunately, the academic to athletic ratio sounds like it was more like 75/25 toward the end of Coach Riley’s time here as our head coach. However, that’s heaven compared to the 90/10 (academics/football) that we had here with Andersen. If we intend to truly compete in this conference - even with the stellar academic rep of the PAC 12, which is definitely #1 among Power 5 conferences - we can not afford to put more into academics than growth as an athlete. Both are important, but we need committed football players and quality teachers of the game here. I think it's admirable that Andersen achieved the results he did with the graduation rates. I really do. But I wonder. I wonder what the net result on the culture is when you run that kind of tight ship. See, the guys that I know and respect that played for Riley all kind of say the same thing - that Coach Riley treated you like a man. Treated you with respect and love and the worst thing in the world was for him to look at you with disappointment on his face. The ones who loved him would run through walls for him. And to be clear, that wasn't all of them. But it was a LOT of them. An overwhelming majority loved Coach Riley with all their hearts. What I'm hearing from people about Andersen's era is that Hardass Gary was a micromanager. You know what it's like to have a micromanager for a boss? I do. It's a trainwreck. People who micromanage are always looking to have *maximum effect* with their decisions. That's the point, they're running around giving direction to everyone else, trying to provide their "leadership" and "vision". The problem with that, is that of course they don't have the depth of knowledge the person who is running that group does. So basically they run around disrupting your development as a group and forcing you to chase your tail. And the worst kind doesn't have a strong vision, they keep changing direction. What I'm getting at is that I think the type of guy who will micromanage players attending class, even when that net result is the highest grad rates ever, the net result is negative for the damage that he does to the culture (players feeling like they are babysat, not treated like men) and the development of the position groups where he has disrupted their training process. Some disruption is good. Changing offenses once a year, I think we would all agree, is very bad. Anyway. Just random musings about how different personalities are leaders. I think we all really liked how Gary talked the talk in the beginning because we figured the team would play disciplined high effort football with talk like that, and it just didn't work out that way.. for myriad reasons. I did a test on a boss I had once. I sent him a report I wrote. He made a number of edits. I did a straight accept all on the changes and then sat on the report for about a week. Did some other stuff. I then sent him the report again, saying here is my draft an you take a look at it? I watched as he edited all HIS edits again. The report wasn't big. Just a two page brief, so it wasn't like he was discovering new things. I repeated the cycle a second time. accepting all his changes. Sitting on the report for a week then sending it back as if it is my first draft. He never noticed that he had read all of it before, and he continued to change his own words. Micromanager without clear vision.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Dec 21, 2017 10:03:35 GMT -8
I think it's admirable that Andersen achieved the results he did with the graduation rates. I really do. But I wonder. I wonder what the net result on the culture is when you run that kind of tight ship. See, the guys that I know and respect that played for Riley all kind of say the same thing - that Coach Riley treated you like a man. Treated you with respect and love and the worst thing in the world was for him to look at you with disappointment on his face. The ones who loved him would run through walls for him. And to be clear, that wasn't all of them. But it was a LOT of them. An overwhelming majority loved Coach Riley with all their hearts. What I'm hearing from people about Andersen's era is that Hardass Gary was a micromanager. You know what it's like to have a micromanager for a boss? I do. It's a trainwreck. People who micromanage are always looking to have *maximum effect* with their decisions. That's the point, they're running around giving direction to everyone else, trying to provide their "leadership" and "vision". The problem with that, is that of course they don't have the depth of knowledge the person who is running that group does. So basically they run around disrupting your development as a group and forcing you to chase your tail. And the worst kind doesn't have a strong vision, they keep changing direction. What I'm getting at is that I think the type of guy who will micromanage players attending class, even when that net result is the highest grad rates ever, the net result is negative for the damage that he does to the culture (players feeling like they are babysat, not treated like men) and the development of the position groups where he has disrupted their training process. Some disruption is good. Changing offenses once a year, I think we would all agree, is very bad. Anyway. Just random musings about how different personalities are leaders. I think we all really liked how Gary talked the talk in the beginning because we figured the team would play disciplined high effort football with talk like that, and it just didn't work out that way.. for myriad reasons. I did a test on a boss I had once. I sent him a report I wrote. He made a number of edits. I did a straight accept all on the changes and then sat on the report for about a week. Did some other stuff. I then sent him the report again, saying here is my draft an you take a look at it? I watched as he edited all HIS edits again. The report wasn't big. Just a two page brief, so it wasn't like he was discovering new things. I repeated the cycle a second time. accepting all his changes. Sitting on the report for a week then sending it back as if it is my first draft. He never noticed that he had read all of it before, and he continued to change his own words. Micromanager without clear vision. LMAO Wait until you have a boss who is also a narcissist. That was the absoluuute best.. any time I had an idea, if I presented it as fully formed, he would assume the role of Devil's Advocate and make me want to murder him. Once I had an epiphany and presented an idea I had as half-baked and pretended I was too stupid to take it to completion. Watch him wander around and give him a few breadcrumbs to lead him in the right direction to the obvious solution and then presto - no Devil's Advocate. I realized that he felt his name and reputation was on everything, so if an idea belonged to someone else he had to make sure that he wasn't missing something that could bite him in the ass. But if the idea belonged to HIM, it couldn't possibly bite him in the ass, because he is always the smartest guy in the room.
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Dec 21, 2017 13:13:07 GMT -8
I had a prof, who believed that as students, there was no way that we could assert that our knowledge, experience and analytical abilities in his area could come close to him. I realized early on that the only way to get through this little wall of perception was to begin each of my projects by writing (something to this effect) that I fully understood that I was a little worm with a tiny brain and that though there was no way that I could possibly provide a satisfactory solution to the proposed situation, I am providing an answer that is to the best of my current level relative to where he stood in the field, and I humbly bow down to whatever he might find lacking in it.
Needless to say I aced his course and even was told that he would support me if I went for my doctorate in his field.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 21, 2017 13:45:52 GMT -8
Worst Power 5 teams: 2017: 1. Kansas 2. Oregon State 3. Illinois 4. Brigham Young 5. Baylor 6. Rutgers 7. Tennessee 8. Vanderbilt 9. Nebraska 10. Maryland
2016:
1. Rutgers 2. Kansas 3. Purdue 4. Illinois 5. Arizona 6. Arizona State 7. South Carolina 8. Missouri 9. Maryland 10. Oregon State
2015:
1. Kansas 2. Oregon State 3. Rutgers 4. Purdue 5. Colorado 6. Maryland 7. Kentucky 8. Boston College 9. South Carolina 10. Minnesota
Kansas is undoubtedly the worst Power 5 team and have been the worst Power 5 team for the better part of a decade. The Jayhawks' last bowl game was in 2008 at the Insight Bowl, back when that was still a thing. 2009 was Kansas' last 4+ win season. Since? 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 0, 2, and 1 wins. 15-81. A .156 winning percentage. The Jayhawks only beat SE Missouri State this year at home. All other games were 10+ point losses. Kansas owns a 46-game road winning streak and a 49-game losing streak away from Lawrence.
Over the past three years, Rutgers is the only team that has arguably been worse than Oregon State, but the Knights appear to be righting the ship, under second-year coach, Chris Ash.
Oregon State is second or third.Are these your rankings Wilky? Are they from one of the computer rankings? I should have said. That is FPI.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Dec 21, 2017 14:17:12 GMT -8
I had a prof, who believed that as students, there was no way that we could assert that our knowledge, experience and analytical abilities in his area could come close to him. I realized early on that the only way to get through this little wall of perception was to begin each of my projects by writing (something to this effect) that I fully understood that I was a little worm with a tiny brain and that though there was no way that I could possibly provide a satisfactory solution to the proposed situation, I am providing an answer that is to the best of my current level relative to where he stood in the field, and I humbly bow down to whatever he might find lacking in it. Needless to say I aced his course and even was told that he would support me if I went for my doctorate in his field. I met a guy who went to Stanford Law School and did really well while he was there (made Law Review, etc.). What was his secret? Whatever class he took, he found a book by the professor and integrated the professor's writings into the final exam for the class. He said it almost didn't matter the subject, he just had to get in the professor's own words.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Dec 21, 2017 15:52:58 GMT -8
I had a prof, who believed that as students, there was no way that we could assert that our knowledge, experience and analytical abilities in his area could come close to him. I realized early on that the only way to get through this little wall of perception was to begin each of my projects by writing (something to this effect) that I fully understood that I was a little worm with a tiny brain and that though there was no way that I could possibly provide a satisfactory solution to the proposed situation, I am providing an answer that is to the best of my current level relative to where he stood in the field, and I humbly bow down to whatever he might find lacking in it. Needless to say I aced his course and even was told that he would support me if I went for my doctorate in his field. LOL social engineering at its' best.
|
|