05.Mar.2015 On Wayne Tinkle Starting Walk-ons

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 2.3/5 (6 votes cast)

Tinkle, in his post game press conference, said some would be criticizing his move to start walk-ons. Damn straight, as Tinkle would say.

What is most disturbing to me, is that it was a Mike Riley move. A Mike Riley mentality. Something a nice guy would do. A guy with killer instincts starts his best five and finds a way to thank his walk-ons later, even if it’s just “thanks” (that’s all that’s needed–these are men not little boys, yet OSU treats their athletes with kid gloves). If Gary Andersen starts pulling this crap I seriously will have to look for a new team.

Some in game comments I wrote regarding starting the walk-ons:

If they lose by 3 and miss the NIT because of that he’s sure going to hear it around here.

Scotty assured me they wouldn’t. 🙂

Play your best 5. If you’re winning at the end put the walk-ons in, or just thank them after the game. Putting them on the court vs an overmatched opponent not only embarrassed them (they looked outclassed) but also put the team behind. So you can’t argue team play on one hand and then say putting them out there helped the team. Stupid move to try to be classy. Just let it happen on its own. If there’s opportunity to play those guys play them otherwise don’t.

And finally:

Playing 5 walk-ons = Mike Riley move.

That is what is most disturbing. Nice guys lose games. Giving Oregon points is dumb.

This is all very easy to understand, and if anyone is being illogical it’s the people justifying it because it felt good for 20 seconds. There are other ways to thank your walk-ons without costing the other players the game. He owes the scholarship players the chance to win just as much as he owes the walk-ons a thank you. All the logic/justification I am reading here is ridiculous and more emotion based. You never give the other team an advantage (and if you do, it’s a gambit, which this was not). Period. It’s very very simple stuff.

WT pulled a Mike Riley.

There’s been a lot of disagreement on AB lately. First fans wanted me to criticize WT when he wasn’t doing anything wrong. They wanted me to criticize him for a team out of gas giving max effort. I didn’t do that. Now the other group of fans wants me to give Tinkle a pass for this bone-headed move. I understand why: because the walk-ons are from Oregon and it felt good for 30 seconds. I get it. Winning the game and going to the NIT would have felt good for many hours: for Tinkle, the fans, and yes,  the walk-ons.

I have nothing against the walk-ons, but I don’t think they’re any more special than the scholarship players and visa versa. There are many ways to thank your players, and this was probably the worst way to go about it. Luck o’ the Beavs, and now Tinkle is on Riley/nice guy watch. I would not be surprised if he lost some players from that move. If I am a starter I lose respect for Tinkle over that: he just lowered my odds of winning the game to get the cheap, easy cheer. Very populist; very Riley.

Jump to Bottom
  • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +8 (from 10 votes)

    “now Tinkle is on Riley/nice guy watch. I would not be surprised if he lost some players from that move. If I am a starter I lose respect for Tinkle over that: he just lowered my odds of winning the game to get the cheap, easy cheer. Very populist; very Riley.”

    you’re entitled to your opinion and this is your site. But that is a ginormous reach. I highly doubt anyone is going to leave or transfer for that reason alone.

  • beavblazer beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

    I didn’t get to watch the first half but saw the box score early on from my smart phone. Thought I had the wrong game because I didn’t recognize any of the names.

    If I really thought the Beavs were going to make the NIT, I’d probably dislike the move, but I don’t think that’s where this season would have ended anyway. Feel good moment is fine with me in this situation. Olaf would have found a way to turnover the ball in the finalminute either way and the Beavs would have still lost.

    • tim318 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Amen.

    • ian12171@comcast.net says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      OSU lost because the starters who built a 28-19 lead couldn’t hold it before Halftime.. the starters had 2 late TO’s that killed their chances..Tinkle starting Walk-ons didn’t lose them the game .They played 29 seconds!!. not like they played half them game

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

    For those interested in poor decisions, what goes into them, why people justify them, etc…this is a fantastic summary.

  • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I’m not going to defend WT’s decision to start the walk ons. I can understand why and his reasoning. Would I have done the same? No fucking way. Not in a game this important. There’s several reasons the beavs lost last night. Tinkle even said it himself on more than one occasion, can’t have one or more players having an off night and expect to win (LMW comes to mind here). So many things have to go right for the beavs to have more points than the opponent when the clock strikes zero. Did his decision help that scenario? No, it didn’t. Was it the sole reason they lost? No, it wasn’t. Instead of focusing on those 29 seconds that started the game, look at the entire game as a whole. Free throws and offensive rebounds come to mind. If a couple breaks or calls go the other way, maybe the beavs win. Then we’re all happy and it’s a moot point. Instead some are focusing on those 29 seconds as the sole reason they lost. 3 points. Beavs lost by 3. Maybe if the beavs lost in overtime because they were gassed (a few here have mentioned that as well) some of you’d be complaining about some other reason they lost.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

      There were definitely other reasons they lost, but handicapping yourself is never wise.

      LMW has been MIA for a while now.

      But to counter your argument (and Tinkle’s), they usually have one or two guys missing on any given night and have 17 wins. I’m sure if we look at the Oregon boxscore, we’d find guys who had off nights for them. It seems normal that any 1 or 2 guys will be off on any given night. Seems like an excuse.

      I think they lost the game because OSU is gassed, and because Oregon has better players. But starting your five worst doesn’t help level that discrepancy.

      • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        There were definitely other reasons they lost, but handicapping yourself is never wise.

        No disagreement on that

        LMW has been MIA for a while now.

        Ditto

        But to counter your argument (and Tinkle’s), they usually have one or two guys missing on any given night and have 17 wins. I’m sure if we look at the Oregon boxscore, we’d find guys who had off nights for them. It seems normal that any 1 or 2 guys will be off on any given night. Seems like an excuse.

        Worked for a 15-2 record at home. Mind you these last 2 losses were against the 2nd and 3rd place teams in the conference. LMW did hit the game winner against Arizona. That also happened to be the last game VR played in before suspension. Gassed? Probably played into the equation as well so no argument here either.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

          I think the only contention is starting the walk-ons. Think we all agree on the rest, even that starting them didn’t necessarily cost them the game (losing by 3 is coincidence, they could have easily lost by 4 if one of Oregon’s players made an extra free throw). We will never know every variable of any situation. But we do know, or should reasonably assume, that starting worse players over better players decreases the odds of winning. Tinkle said he had a vision of the walk-on hitting a 3 and then calling a timeout. As I have written in the past, “Hope is not a strategy”, and Tinkle went with emotion/hope/neat story over probability and reason.

  • GOBeavers GOBeavers says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

    I think this is an overreaction. Reminds me of the overreaction to the Lyle Moevao tweet.

    The game wasn’t lost because of a 3-0 start allowed by the walk-ons. That is where the disagreement is and why some people aren’t so upset about the move. It’s not being taken by the “emotion” of the moment. It’s disagreement over the significance of the 3-0 start.

    Personally, at the time I didn’t like the decision and I wouldn’t have made it. I just don’t think it is the reason we lost.

    Also, you’re making a lot of assumptions about how the team feels about this, probably based on how you feel after watching the team lose a very close game. The starters had many chances to win the game. I doubt they are blaming the walk-on’s when they had dozens more chances to win the game for the team.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

      I never said it was the reason they lost. Just that it helped them lose and was a bad decision.

      • That Other Guy says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

        Duvivier in the press conference said he was all on board for it.

        “I thought it was amazing. Coach (Tinkle) came to me at the shoot around and shot me the idea. I said yeah. These are the guys that come out here every day, working hard, and I feel like they deserve the opportunity on this kind of night. Especially that they are from Oregon and they really know the history of the Civil War. I felt that it was a good thing to show our appreciation to them for the amount of work they
        put in and for how they pushed us every day.”

  • Bill says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

    Here’s a different look at the issue,

    The walk ons didn’t come back in the game after the initial start. The played 5 mins of 200 total minutes.

    Here’s the last three games minutes for walk ons.
    Vs Cal – 12 min of walk ons
    vs Stanford – 30 min of walk ons
    vs Colorado – 10 min of walk ons

    Playing them for less minutes than the previous games would tell me that Tinkle is putting a more competitive team out there. Playing them at the start wasn’t as big a deal as it seems.

    I don’t think it was a bad decision. Starters seemed to enjoy giving these guys their due. If Tinkle sensed that the starters had issues, I don’t think he would have done it.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      Yes, they played fewer minutes but in those prior games all weren’t on the floor at the same time. 1 walk on playing vs 5 is a big difference. They couldn’t get the ball past half court.

      If it’s not a bad decision, he should do it every game. So should every coach.

      • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

        They could save a shitload of money from the recruiting budget if Tinkle would limit his recruiting to Dixon Rec. Center. School could probably afford to spring for a new inflatable helmet.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

          Yeah fans like it so much we might as well make it our identity and save a few bucks.

          If 30 seconds of walk-ons is good, why not 40? Where does the arbitrariness of it end and math/reality set in? Emotion is a crazy crazy thing, buddy.

      • Bill says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

        I think you got a little too angry on this one Angry.

  • RanYakumo RanYakumo says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)

    Like the Moevao tweet, I think you’re blowing this out of proportion. Would I have done it? No. But to say this puts Tinkle on “Riley watch” is one of the dumber things I’ve heard. He makes one move you don’t like, and that’s enough to call him Riley-esque? Really?

    If he had done a few other moves in this vein prior to this Civil War game, I would see where you’re coming from. Right now though, I don’t.

  • cj cj says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 8 votes)

    Angry, you are so far off base that I’m finding it hard to believe.

    OSU made a huge mistake by not hiring you as coach…for all the sports!

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

      I don’t have time to coach, but they can hire me as a consultant.

      By the way, if I am so far off base and starting walk-ons improves the odds of winning, then Tinkle should start the walk-ons every game.

      • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

        He should have given some court time to whomever got the sweat stains out of his blue shirt. Talk about an unsung hero.

  • Ragged says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    When looking at the situation objectively, we would need to compare playing the walk-ons versus playing the starters, not just that playing the walk-ons “cost” the team 3 points. Who says the starters would not have also given up 3 points to start the game (as they often have)? I’m not sure we can say playing the walk-ons helped or hurt the situation since we don’t have comparative data. If it helped the starters get energized, feel like the coach supported the players, etc it may be good overall for the team. Seems like most the fans liked the move.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -4 (from 10 votes)

      Then he should do it every game, as should all coaches. Every coach in America is nuts for not starting their walk-ons, according to you guys. Lol. It’s so obvious you’re justifying it because your coach started walk-ons from Oregon. Talk about bias. Charlie Munger would have a field day with you guys haha.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

        A->B, B->C, C->D, Not-D

        Yay contraposition!!! I think you even mentioned a Venn diagram in a previous thread.

        Wait… Charlie Munger? I thought you disliked regulation.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          On a Venn diagram, can you think of a way to dislike charlie munger, yet like the psychological ideas he talks about?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I don’t know if it would be a Venn. It would be concentric circles. His actions are consistent with his words. The only part of him you can dislike is the part of him that is what he says and thinks.

    • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

      I’m pretty confident the starters would not have had three straight turnovers.
      Do you think Urban Meyer or Chip Kelly would pull this crap against their biggest rival? Me neither.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

        Oh, and I forgot “over influence of social proof”. The guy quoting Duvivier (I still can’t spell this guy’s name) as proof that decision was right. If Gary Payton II is clapping for walk-ons the decision is right. Etc.

        This thread is a microcosm of life, markets, sports, emotions, psychology. I love it. It’s interesting how people will spin their hamster wheel just to avoid reality.

        • That Other Guy says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          nailed the Duvivier spelling 😉

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Finally!

            Doubt I could do it again lol

          • That Other Guy says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Maybe you wont have to learn how to spell it if he was so offended by not starting that he decides to transfer….I kid.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            For the record: I never said anyone would transfer.

            I said mentally the winners (i.e. players with uber-competitive/winning mindsets) might check out.

          • That Other Guy says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I am well aware. But also at the same time, if winners mentally check out for not playing the first 30 seconds of the game are those they really winners?

        • RanYakumo RanYakumo says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

          Yeah, call everyone who disagrees with you brainless hamsters! That’s sure to get people to agree with you!

          With comments like this, you’re starting to remind me of old high school classmates who thought they were the only “enlightened” ones that knew how to fix everything, and everyone else was part of the plebeian masses that had the brains of sheep. It’s annoying, convinces no one, and only makes the other side dig deeper into their trenches.

          Everyone wants to believe they’re the only one that accepts reality, and everyone else is just in denial, but the truth is that we all deny reality to some extend (me included) to live our lives. No good comes out of getting on a high horse and pretending otherwise.

          Please take a deep breathe, and step away from the keyboard for a moment.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -3 (from 3 votes)

            Not brainless hamsters. Humans with brains so biased they spin their mental hamster wheels to make reality match their thesis. Big difference so get it straight.

            And I’m not enlightened. Just understand basic math/stats.

            People don’t have to agree with me, nor do I expect it. The moment I made this post it was doomed to argument. In the other thread, I saw everyone liked Tinkle’s decision. So I had that bias working against me; add to that the fact I am unlikeable and that makes it hard for someone to admit I am right.

            These are all you problems. All I care about is reality/truth. Even if it’s negative, like the fact I am unlikeable.

            But what I learned last night is that Tinkle has some Riley in him. That’s the big picture, after the dust settled and all the tiffing.

            That Lyle M tweet was still weird, by the way. Very weird.

          • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            The question is, if the Beavs had won the game, who would still be pissed off about the decision?
            Sounds like I’m the only one with Angry on this.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

            The lack of one post-hoc does not make another post-hoc rational.

            I think pretty much everyone agrees that this was a Riley moment. But to conflate one Riley moment where the consequences were trivial at best and then support it with a reductio ad absurdum built with at least one straw man… leaves us here arguing two different things.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            And now the Benchwarmer show is hyping up the Ducks.

            Good grief. Yes, let’s just talk about how good they are for an hour so that we don’t feel so bad about losing to them.

            Does anyone have actual proof of Riley being in Nebraska? Jiminy Christmas!

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Ducks? What’s the Benchwarmer show?

            Did you mean to respond here?

          • beavblazer beavblazer says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            The moment I made this post it was doomed to argument.

            Doomed? Isn’t argument the reason you made the post in the first place?

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            [warm group beaver hug]

            We all know the only real brainless hamster here is that troll who keeps posting as Victor Robbins (and maybe Jack 😉 )

            jk, jk

        • krogercomplete says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

          The Duvivier quote was a direct response to your comment that you wouldn’t be surprised if we lost some players over this. It wasn’t offered as proof that the decision was right.

          No one disagrees with the concept that playing five walk-ons puts you at a competitive disadvantage during that period when those walk-ons are on the floor. No one. The dispute, as I gather from the posts, is whether it really mattered at all, or mattered enough to justify an entire (oddly defensive) post from you on the subject. And on this point–the key point in the dispute–you’re not really offering much resistance: “I think they lost the game because OSU is gassed, and because Oregon has better players.”

          I’m not sure why you are so bent out of shape about what seems to have been a very well-received gesture during the opening moments of the game, a gesture that you do not appear to seriously believe actually cost them the game. Because you think it might cost the team players? Because this is evidence that Tinkle is going to turn into Riley? Are these serious complaints or were you just bored?

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Yes, because it’s a Riley/populist thing to do, but also a winner doesn’t put his worst players out there to start an important game. Tinkle said he envisioned players hitting 3s. Hope is not a winner’s strategy.

            wouldn’t be surprised if we lost some players over this.

            For the third time: MENTALLY.

            Jeesh.

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            So is it just more of an academic objection, as opposed to something of any practical value to anyone? That’s fine if it is, just want to clarify the gripe. I assume (hope) you did not actually mean that this move proves Tinkle is not a “winner.”

            I understand you meant mentally.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 7 votes)

            No it doesn’t prove he’s not a winner. It just proves he is capable of making Riley-esque/loser decisions.

            I still like Tinkle. Quite a bit. But I’d be lying to say my opinion [of him] isn’t less. Now I have to watch him more closely. I didn’t think he had any of that loser/populist/”hope is a strategy” mentality in him.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            I think you’re attacking the wrong context. The tradition of sportsmanship is open to moves like this in this specific context. We had nothing to really play for other than the win. It was the final home game of the season. Next year, the seniors will likely start in that context.

            Regardless, the mistake made was that it was spur of the moment. Done properly, the players should have all known as early as Monday and practiced a couple surefire sets and press breaks. They should have started practices with them leading off drills, etc. It’s fine to start the kids for whatever reason, knowing the start is the thing. It’s not right to just throw them to the wolves without notice.

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            It certainly does prove he is capable of making a nice gesture to the walk-ons, at what everyone apparently agrees was of very little (or no) risk to the outcome of the game. You better watch this mother fucker like a hawk, Angry.

          • RanYakumo RanYakumo says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            1. You don’t have to watch him more closely. That’s entirely up to you, and given that he’s not even completed a full season with OSU yet, I would say it’s uncalled for.

            2. EVERY coach has made Riley-esque/loser decisions at some point in their career. The difference between those coaches and Riley is that Riley made these decisions a habit, and he never tried to learn from them.

            We’ll see what direction Tinkle takes in the future, but right now, it’s too soon to say anything other than “Nice gesture, but it’s probably better that he found a way to pay respect to the walk-ons that didn’t have a chance to negatively effect the game.”

      • Ragged says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

        Chip Kelly would have played Victor Robbins.

        • That Other Guy says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          No doubt in my mind.

        • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Haha. You are correct.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I believe Nikegon has since caught up to the real world when it comes to suspensions. In the case of Robbins, he can’t play again until one year after his DUI. Technically, it might be a couple games beyond that if suspensions can’t be served concurrently.

        • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          He wouldn’t have been suspended to begin with. Pulls up rug, sweep, sweep. What are you talking about? I don’t know anyone named Wille

  • GoBeavs90 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)

    I really don’t think there’s a correlation between having a killer instinct and starting your best 5 on senior night. Not even close to a Riley decision.

    I wouldn’t have started the walk ons but I thought it was cool that he did it for the walk ons. It really wasn’t much of a factor in the final outcome. They were down 3-0 which hurt but the starters came in and missed their first 3 shots and had a turnover that pushed it to 8-0. Beavers came back and took a 28-19 lead and pretty much eliminated the walk ons being a factor. The factors were the Beavers closing a half poorly, GP getting a tech, then GP getting into foul trouble, LMW not making open shots and Oregon having a big edge at the line.

    I would have just rolled the starting lineup and went from there. Walk ons could have been thanked in another fashion but it ultimately didn’t become a factor in a win or loss. The scholarship players came in and took care of that being an issue. Oregon executed and the Beavers did not at the end of the first half and in the final 5 minutes.

  • scotty says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

    What’s bothering me now is the reaction after losing (listening to the Joe Beaver Show)

    It smacks of Riley-era “well, it was just one game…”, “it might show we have players’ backs and it helps with recruiting”, aw shucks mentality.

    I respect Coach Tinkle, but I am wondering if you can truly take the Riley out of Oregon State.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -5 (from 5 votes)

      Exactly, Scotty. Quickly you are becoming the most insightful commenter.

      OSU fans are all well conditioned to accept a neat story. They are justifying it, etc. I was hoping that was gone. At least from AB. The weirdest thing is fans were criticizing Tinkle last week when he didn’t deserve it. Now this terrible decision is all jake. I think this has something to do with my being unlikeable and hard to agree with, so I am thinking secretly everyone knows it was a bad decision. I hope. If not, God help us. lol

      • scotty says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        If I’m becoming the most insightful commenter, we’re screwed O__O

        Anyone play Silent Hill 2? The ending where James gets with Maria, and as the camera fades, she’s coughing, implying that perhaps though he’s out of the immediate woods, he may be setting up to repeat his original issue with his wife?

        I kind of feel like that here… Hope I’m reading too much into it!

      • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)

        Angry — I think a lot of your normal commentary, but this is WAY off base.

        1 — you dont KNOW this was a bad decision. YOU dont like it, so its WRONG. Just speculation, dude.
        2 — its not like we were playing for the conference title.
        3 — Its related to Riley mentality? A move like this is psychological. The coach decided its a good move. Who right now knows the eventual consequences. Might in fact be positive. Some of Riley’s nice guy stuff might have been beneficial. Its not his nice guy stuff that got him canned — its not having his head in a game, or the prep for games, or even doing a proper job of his coaching. I dont see any of that true of Tinkle.

        …and LOL at you thinking someone agreeing with you on this making them “the most insightful commeter”. Tell you what — if your ego has gone that overboard, maybe ban all of us but you and Scotty and you and he can have fun jerking each other off.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 6 votes)

          It’s always better to start your five best players over your five worst. I really can’t believe people are arguing with me.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I don’t think anyone is.

          • cj cj says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            If you think so you should sit back for a minute or two, and figure out why.

            You are extremely outnumbered on this issue there MUST be a reason besides your thinking that we are hamsters on a tread wheel.

            Give it some deep, personal, thought and maybe you can figure it out.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Being outnumbered means something? By that logic Justin Beiber is better than Mississippi John Hurt.

            Nice try, though, but are you done yet?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            You would like Hurt… if only because you’re an Orwell fan.

            Most underrated role: Alien

            And he’s the War Doctor. You can’t beat that.

    • GOBeavers GOBeavers says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

      You and angry are conflating the walk-ons starting for less than 40 seconds of game time, and going down 3-0, with the loss (and you with how some fans are dealing with the loss).

      What’s funny is that after the normal starters went in, they gave up a 5-0 run to Oregon in the next 40 seconds making it 8-0.

      It was a non-optimal decision by Tinkle in terms of winning, no question. But the amount of emphasis angry put on this is pretty ridiculous.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I think the only contention is starting the walk-ons. Think we all agree on the rest, even that starting them didn’t necessarily cost them the game (losing by 3 is coincidence, they could have easily lost by 4 if one of Oregon’s players made an extra free throw). We will never know every variable of any situation. But we do know, or should reasonably assume, that starting worse players over better players decreases the odds of winning. Tinkle said he had a vision of the walk-on hitting a 3 and then calling a timeout. As I have written in the past, “Hope is not a strategy”, and Tinkle went with emotion/hope/neat story over probability and reason.

        You call this conflating the walk-ons with the loss?

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Yes, because you refer to strategy. If it was anything but a one-off deal which ended as soon as it began (even if it seemed like forever), then you could call it strategy. Otherwise, it’s just fantasy and disregarded.

      • scotty says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        “It was a non-optimal decision by Tinkle in terms of winning, no question.”

        Yes, but it was not a spur-of-the-moment poor coaching decision. It was very premeditated and known ahead of time that it decreased your chances for victory – the same victory the team (walk-ons included) have been working and sacrificing for.

        It’s not the end of the world.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

          “Premeditated Rileyism” should be a felony.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I thought they said it was decided in the shoot around.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Even that is plenty of time to, uh, meditate. Not exactly a 30 second timeout where you scramble and draw up a bad play. I’m sure he had the idea even before that, anyway.

  • beavblazer beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +11 (from 11 votes)

    Still think this was a good move by WT in the grand scheme. Say the Beavs don’t start the walk-ons and win the game. Beaver fans would be excited and talking about it today. Nobody else would give a shit and the Beavs would still be on their way to the Pac-12 tournament, which will likely be the end of their season. Yay.

    Instead, the walk on story has made national news. ESPN talking heads are talking about it, national radio shows are talking about it. I’m sure it will be mentioned during the Pac-12 tournament next week. It’s put the team from Oregon State in the national news, which doesn’t happen often. (and the news has been all positive) It may only last a day or 2 more, but that extra exposure lets people around the country know that there actually is a team here. National exposure wouldn’t have happened with a single Civil War win.

    It’s not like this will turn into an ongoing theme at OSU. We won’t have 5+ walkons next year. The walk-ons were a big part of the team’s narrative this season, so I have no problem giving them 30 seconds as a thank you.

    • krogercomplete says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

      beavblazer, you are such a dipshit. Didn’t you read anything Angry said? Winners just don’t do this. They don’t. Period. Populists do. And populism is dumb.

      • cj cj says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

        Nothing you say speaks to the culture that Tinkle is installing. You, angry, scotty & others are so intent on seeing the negative of almost every situation that you overlook the positive(s) most of the time.

        You’re like duck-trolls only worse because you’re ab-ers.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -3 (from 3 votes)

          a. he was being sarcastic.
          b. since you hate my opinions, maybe you should leave this site and go read pure-orange. for your own health.

          • Bob says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Never take anything said in here personal, that just creates stress, and there goes your perspective.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Taking the internet seriously leads to so much drama in life

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            What?!!!!!

            Who the hell do you think you are telling me there’s anything remotely resembling drama when taking the interwebs seriously?!!!!!!

            I’m so sad.

          • cj cj says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Nah, that would take the fun out…

          • cj cj says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            …of telling you how wrong you are on this issue.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            You done?

    • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

      I would rather have them talking about the Beavets upsetting our arch rival and getting to .500 in the PAC. Since when did this site become PURE ORANGE part II.
      That other shit loser justification in the grand MIke Riley tradition. I hoped we had kicked that crap to the curb.

      • beavblazer beavblazer says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

        They wouldn’t be talking about that. Maybe locally, but nobody else would give a shit about a team reaching .500.
        Look, I hate the ducks as much as anybody on here and would have loved to have beaten them last night, but I also don’t think this game would have changed either teams’ destiny regardless of the outcome.

        • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

          I care. So do most of the posters on the site. Perception matters. We will be recruiting against them and we lost to them. Higher placement in the conference helps sell hope to the next recruiting class.
          Unless WT hires some new coaches with superstar sons, we will need tangible results to get the type of players to compete for championships.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I care, too. NIT would have been a nice cap to the season. Also would have provided valuable playing time, experience in post-season, etc.

          • cj cj says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            That view doesn’t make you right in this argument. No view will do that for you.

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            But again, we’re back to the key issue–did this cost them the NIT? I thought we established before that you don’t actually think this move lost them the game. You’re really upset because, to you, this move smacks of “loserism,” and it has sullied your impression of Tinkle.

            I think gopher actually thinks this cost them the game, so his outrage at least makes some sense, even if the premise he is working from is a stretch.

          • cj cj says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I don’t care if it did, I thought it was a class decision. And should do wonders for the future of the program.

          • That Other Guy says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            What’s with the shift from coaching wins championships to players being what you need to win championships? Obviously you need both to win, but you go from a team with some talent and poor coaching and you are a in the basement of the Pac-12. Now you have good coaching and poor talent and you are a competitive team in the conference. Is there no faith that Tinkle can bring in better players–that aren’t coaches sons– than he inherited this year?

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            It’s a good question.

            My opinion: players win championships, but the coach sets the culture and tone required to do so. These feed off one another in a cycle. Oregon under Chip Kelly was a great example of that. But there are many.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            http://www.ukathletics.com/blog/2010/03/calipari-seniors-will-start.html

            Happens all the time in varying degrees. Sometimes tradition is as motivating a force for a recruit as is anything else. In the case of Nikegon, anti-tradition is that force.

            One of those methods has actually won a championship.

          • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            You need tangible results. He signed a great class, but is not a realistic sample of his recruiting prowess because two of the coaches were sleeping with two top recruits mom’s. Male sluts.

          • That Other Guy says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            I agree. But I would be shocked if Tinkle is unable to bring in players that are better and fit his system than the players he has now. I don’t see him getting many if any one-and-done players, but smart, fundamentally sound, Pac-12 caliber players.

  • That Other Guy says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Maybe GP2 was actually was upset about not starting, getting that T was very uncharacteristic of GP2.

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Hey, if you’re gonna take it out on someone, take it out on a quack player. Scotty approves 😉

  • beavblazer beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Speaking of rape….did you know that your medical records, from visitation with on campus counselors, are not protected by HIPPA?
    Apparently Oregon knew this, and they raided the records of the girls who has recently accused them of mishandling the men’s basketball case, to use her own therapy notes against her in court. How is this not a bigger deal?

    http://chronicle.com/article/Raped-on-Campus-Don-t-Trust/228093/

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      “How is this not a bigger deal?”

      Because people care about winning. End. Of. Story. So many will claim otherwise, but look at the world. No matter the arena, generally people respect winners and will not tolerate losers.

    • Victor Robbins says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      Straight talk! It because you know Phil night is paying everyone off or to look the other way on this for a few hundred grand “donation” to the foundation!! LMAO!!

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Hey!!!

        Phil Knight can do whatever he wants with the profits he makes from off-shoring production to places where 12 year-old sex slaves and conscripted labor are hunky dory!!!! He hides cash in off-shore accounts because it’s good for the whole of the Beaver state dammit!!!! And he forces the state to side-step the laws the rest of us need to abide in order to spend thrice the value on a mausoleum with a great big jellyfish in the middle of a pond.

        Imagine if the TTATT were built during the boom when prices and labor were high due to shortages and inflation. That Phil Knight is a genius for building an arena that only cost three times as much as it’s worth. He could have forced the state to side-step laws a couple years earlier and spent twice as much as he did… like River Bend Hospital… which was built during the boom and at a premium and regulated under state laws… for 40% more than the TTATT. Then again, it’s not like the building codes and parameters for a gigantic hospital complex are anything as complex as a hoops arena.

        So leave the man alone!

  • youngorst says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

    This is an utterly absurd rant. This team was not making the NIT and doing something like this for the walk ons didn’t cause the outcome. Hell, showing the respect you have for your walk ons just might get you better walk ons/practice players in the future which can make your team better.

  • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

    I hated the move, starting the walk-ons, as soon as it happened. It took no genius to figure this game would be close, and 3 points could well be the difference.

    But there may be a positive to it, the coach showing he valued everyone on the team. So I am not going to retro-judge the move. He wanted to do it, he is the coach, and so I’ll wait to see what the future holds. Play the starters and GPII might have fouled out before the end and it not be so close…..who knows.

    And I dont see any relation to anything Riley might have done.

    Tinkle is light years ahead of CR …. took bottom feeder talent and got a winning record out of it, middle of the pack in conference over a projection to come in last. Count yer blessings.

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

      “And I dont see any relation to anything Riley might have done.”

      Well, he lost the Civil War 😉

      • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        No, the team lost it. And the context here is Riley nice guy stuff. And the nice guy stuff isnt why Riley was a bad coach.

  • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

    You’re looking at it saying it helped them lose. You could look at it differently, saying playing the walk-ons helped them lose by less. Maybe they lose by 5 if Tinks just went with the starters. Everyone talks about the mental aspects and effort variables in the game of basketball, and maybe this helped the starters in those areas. Who knows. Maybe I’m just trying to justify it. Maybe they do well in the pac tourney and someone in the NIT committee hears about what Tinkle did, sees the Beav fan pack Gill, and gets a little tickle in their pickle.

    Riley plays the wrong guys for the wrong reasons. I think Tinkle played the wrong guys for the right reasons.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

      Riley plays the wrong guys for the wrong reasons. I think Tinkle played the wrong guys for the right reasons.

      That part is true. I think Tinkle truly believes in his decision. It was just the wrong decision.

      Can someone explain how:

      Starting five best < starting five worst? and Why Tinkle couldn't honor walk-ons later, like after the game? Until there is a good answer for those, I remain unconvinced, and think it was boneheaded. When I say it's a Riley-esque decision, I mean the "neat story" part of it. Tinkle did it because it's a neat story. That's not good.

      • beavblazer beavblazer says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

        When you starting five best includes Olaf/LMW, it could be argued the starting 5 worst is better off for a 30-40 second segment of the game.

        Scenario.
        1st possession, Olaf receives the ball and turns it over with a lazy pass. Ducks get transition basket +1 with an LMW foul.
        2nd possession, Olaf receives the ball and heaves a 3. Airball. long rebound starts duck transition opportunity and another Beav player fouls for the +1.
        After 40 seconds, the Beavs are down 6-0, with 2 fouls to starting players.

        At least yesterday, none of the real starters got into foul trouble in the first 30 seconds. 🙂

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        You remain unconvinced of what? I think most people admit they would not have done the same.

        The only thing I can think of for a justification is that it was senior night. We had no seniors, but we did have a bunch of guys who would not step foot on the court again as players. So in that context it’s fine. If we were playing for an NCAA berth, no way does this happen. But I think we also know we wouldn’t also have enough walk-ons to start like this if we were doing so. If it’s the beginning of a tradition where outgoing players get one last chance to play on the home court, then I can give it a pass.

        Now, if the seniors who don’t get starts do not get the same treatment next year, then I will have an extreme hissy about it and prostrate myself before this very thread.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

          Unconvinced of the arguments justifying it. People say they wouldn’t do it, then give justifications as to why it was right. If I’m being a nice guy and humanistic, I can give it a pass, too, Jack, as I understand why it’s a great underdog homage. But when you step on the court the goal is to win, and that has to take priority over emotions.

          OSU wouldn’t make the NIT by beating Oregon, but they might if they beat Oregon and Washington. There was something on the line, but even if there weren’t, there’s always something on the line. I just can’t believe how many people are forgiving it. It seems to me they’re forgiving it because it’s a “neat story” (who doesn’t like an underdog/walkon?). Five Rudy’s out there, so of course it felt great and Tinkle looks classy. Everyone is caught up in that. Have you read some of the justifications? “This will result in getting better walk-ons in the future”. Really?

          If Tinkle started 5 guys in a wheelchairs, ABers would be ready to elect him to the OSU Hall of Fame! (no offense to those in wheelchairs — I’m quickly headed toward one). I don’t know if I’m more disappointed with Tinkle or the blog’s readers. At first Tinkle, but after reading these defenses of his decision, I don’t know…

          Beavergopher– get my back!

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Justifications are why he gets a pass, not why it was right. If he came out and said what I listed above and had prepared for it in practice even moderately, then he would be 100% right to do it. It was right in context but boneheaded in practice.

            And it’s still a one-off. Give me another data point before I even pretend to start drawing lines.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Give me another data point before I even pretend to start drawing lines.

            Agree completely. A dot isn’t a pattern.

            But I thought very highly of him, and now I think highly of him. And I now know he has at least a tiny bit of Riley in him, which is disturbing.

            This is why I liked Scotty’s comment that “you can’t take the Riley out of OSU”…not because of ego (low blow by rsteve).

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I’ve not paid attention to the fallout anywhere but here. So there may very well be Pollyanna reasoning (i.e. it’s classy, it’s a neat deal, etc.) out there. That’s what I thought scotty meant by that statement. While not hearing it now, I’ve heard it before and can imagine it all with some accuracy.

            The one reason you do this is because it’s tradition to give outgoing players who otherwise would not play a chance to say good-bye to their home court, and to give the fans a chance to thank them when they walk off the floor during the first break. If one of them is a gamer, he gets a little extra time. But those are anomalies.

            But again, you don’t decide to do it a couple hours before tip. You practice for it and give those guys the best chance not to look bad if even for 30 seconds. A spur of the moment thing is not a tradition. That’s the Riley moment in all this.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            I haven’t either, but I listened to the Parker link below just now, and he loves Tinkle playing the walk ons. For the most part everyone calling in liked it. Parker is spinning it as something that will help recruiting, showing Tinkle takes care of their own. I don’t know…maybe? We’ll see if any recruit references that moment as leading to their signing. It seems like a stretch by Parker.

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            It is no more a stretch than your claim that this move will lose players mentally.

            As has been said many times already, this is about impact, and context is everything. No one disagrees with you that the 5 walkons will likely do worse out there in a given stretch than the starters. That is not even the argument, though you keep trying to make that the argument. I think Tinkle figured, hey, this would be a great tribute and a cool thing to do, and I’ll pull them out quickly before things get out of hand. The risk is minimal. And he did, and at the end of the day, I don’t think it ended up being a difference maker at all. And as far as I can gather, neither do you, which is what makes you clinging to this argument so bizarre.

            As far as the arguments about the positive impact this may have, who knows. But no more speculative than some of your own claims.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Still, it should have been organized like a senior day event. The kids should have been introduced with their parents and given an ovation while they were being announced in the starting line-ups. They should have been treated as the first line in practice and in warm-ups… given honorary captainships, etc.

            That’s the only thing that bugs me. If you’re going to ham it up, then dammit, ham it to the bone… and then make soup out of the bone.

          • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            The low blow here is accusing Tinkle of being like Riley. And saying you cant take the Riley out of OSU is not just bullshit, its meaningless. Angry and Scotty are both like Mike Riley in various ways. So deal with it.

            I am starting to think that what the Scottys and Angrys want is for OSU to be just like UO, where winning is the ONLY thing that counts. No Riley there, at all, right? Well, fuck that!

  • ScruffyChipmunk says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

    After thinking about it for a day, I believe it was a tactical move by Tinkle that blew up in his face. Think about what the reaction would have been had the walk-ons been able to keep it scoreless for a minute or (god forbid) hit a few shots and buy some time?

    1. Gill would have exploded
    2. The regular starters would have gone crazy and (hopefully) played their asses off when they got in.
    3. UO players are embarassed and demoralized.

    Instead, Altman smartly puts on the full-court press, the walk-ons pee themselves and throw the ball away and we’re questioning the move a day later.

    Had it worked and OSU won the game, it would have gone down as a memorable moment for years to come. Instead, it went about as bad as it could possibly go and STILL didn’t matter match in the big picture.

    I remember when Johan Reinalda got the start in his last game as a senior (also against Oregon, 1990?). He fouled out in 10 minutes or so but had several blocked shots and the crowd was going nuts chanting his name.

    Tinkle might say he was doing it as a favor to players but I’d bet that part of him was hoping it would be an adrenaline shot to start the game off on the right foot. Instead he misfired and blew the foot off his leg. Oh well.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I think there’s something to this, and Tinkle’s comment that he envisioned one of them hitting a 3 supports it.

      If that were his reasoning, it’s interesting at least, and very much an anti-Riley thought process. It gets into tactics/chess a bit, which I can respect more than “hope” as a strategy (though where the tactic begins and hope ends is hard to differentiate in this case).

  • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

    Hey, “most insightful” scotty, nice job on JoeBeav today. Parker couldn’t contain his disdain for your very valid reference to Riley.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Link to, or paraphrase of, what he said?

      • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        http://hypothetical.net/beaver/assets/JoeBeaverShow_2015-03-05.mp3
        Jump to about 40:40.

        “if you are one of the walkons it’s always going to be in the back of your head (that you may have cost the team the NIT or ?)”
        “people don’t become winners because they’re loved, they become loved because they are winners”

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

          Parker is so annoying.
          Good call.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            I like Parker. I’m glad someone balances out the angry beavs 🙂

        • scotty says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Thanks.

          The sad part is that I hate everything I said… but that doesn’t change the fact I think it’s by and large the truth.

          sigh 🙁

          • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Parker was quite condescending.

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            unlike Jim Wilson, you can’t say anything negative about OSU with Parker. It’s a losing proposition

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Damn! Not even gonna stand up for a fellow napkin eater?

  • Outcast says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

    How is this any different than the tradition of starting seniors for their final game at home (including those that typically haven’t seen much court/field time during the course of their respective careers)? This OSU team doesn’t have any seniors, so coach gave five guys that won’t be with the team next year the chance to start their final home game to thank them for helping OSU field a team this year. The fact that these were 5 guys from the state of Oregon just added to the story. That decision did NOT cost them the game, and your criticism is blowing it way out of proportion.

  • Ackrite says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    I think in the context of the game and winning, poor coaching decision but in the context of building a program/Fanbase it was the right decision. Year 1 I can understand the decision, but it screams of Riley and Warrants keeping an eye on for more decisions like this.

  • Whiskey Soaked Napkins Whiskey Soaked Napkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Need Arizona, Colorado and Stanford to all win tonight to keep the Beavs in 6th and UW 11th. So far so good. Arizona killing Cal and the Buffs lead UW by 13 at halftime. Stanford/ASU later

  • mckalk says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    I thought about this a little more…..what I don’t like about it was that it was manufactured emotion…whether it was intentional or not it was manipulation of the audience. I would prefer the emotion to come from the starters coming out on fire, inotherwords from intense competition, then from 5 kids who were embarassingly overwhelmed, but “sentimental” favorites. I think WT had a fantasy….his Livesay hitting a 3 comment….but the reality was not even close to that. I don’t know whether it really cost them the game, but it didn’t feel authentic to me.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Good point.

    • beaverkman beaverkman says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Yeah, maybe if he had thought things out a little more, instead of deciding during shoot around tell everybody, he could have worked on a couple of set plays to get them all ready. Practice over and over with all 5 playing with each and run a few set plays so they could just execute them and get a positive start.

  • Gobeavers92 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    Why over think this. WT wanted to reward the walk ons for being a part of the team and putting the work in. Take it at face value.

    The NIT is not for “winners” so that point has zero validity

  • Whiskey Soaked Napkins Whiskey Soaked Napkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Buffs win 64-47 in Seattle. UW now locked into 11th.

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Huskies are in flat-out freefall. They keep getting swatted across the nose with rolled up newspapers

      • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        exactly why we want OSU to stay in 6th and face them in the opening round. It may be a pipe dream at this point because we would lose a tie breaker with Cal. I am still unsure if we would win or lose a tie breaker with Arizona St. They went 0-2 vs Utah while OSU went 0-1. Does that give Oregon State the tie breaker? Or does it then go to 4th place UCLA? ASU went 1-0, OSU 1-1. Both teams went 1-1 vs Arizona and 0-2 vs the Ducks. I have yet to find a concrete answer. ASU could vault all the way to 5th if they win both this weekend and Stanford drops both. That would push Stanford to 6th and OSU to 7th. I don’t see any scenario that drops the Beavs all the way to 8th. At this point I believe it’s 6th or 7th

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -5 (from 5 votes)

          Haven’t you heard? Nobody cares about the Beavs since the NIT is for losers and the games mean nothing, so why do all this work?

          • Whiskey Soaked Napkins Whiskey Soaked Napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I must have missed that since this program has had one NIT game and zero NCAA tourney games in 25 years. If that was sarcasm, It went over my head. If I’m the only one that still cares, so be it

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

            It’s from the Einstein above:

            The NIT is not for “winners” so that point has zero validity

            Since it’s not for winners, it must be for losers (or guys who tie all the time). From what I remember, we on this blog considered the NIT an achievement this year. Until last night, apparently.

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            I would still consider it an accomplishment. IDC what anyone else thinks

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Me, too.

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Einstein, didn’t you just say a few hours ago that “winners don’t put their five worst players on the floor in an important game.” So Wayne Tinkle must be a loser, right (or a guy who ties all the time)? We really should fire him if he is a loser.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            No.

          • Gobeavers92 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            Yep exactly. Circular logic rules the day (on this topic)

          • Whiskey Soaked Napkins Whiskey Soaked Napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Nm. Saw the post above. Sarcasm

  • Calibeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    Angry your thinking about this from the fans perspective. You played team sports at some point right? Think about it from that angle. There shouldn’t be a guy on the squad who is upset about the gesture of starting the walk ons last night it was a great gesture to honor the hard work those dudes put in to make the squad better. Any player who would be mad about that is a dude you wouldn’t want on the team.

  • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

    To me, part of Angry’s job on here is tossing out stuff that even might be food for criticism. And he sure did that here — got a raft of comments and opinions. Good to see — we are alive and well.

    And no, I dont actually think you have an ego problem, Angry. Just think Tinkle has done a hell of a job and didnt like seeing the prod stuck in him just now.

  • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Cougs/Utes tied at 23 at halftime. C’mon Utes!

    • Whiskey Soaked Napkins Whiskey Soaked Napkins says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Cougs up 48-40 with 8 min left. ASU up 12 on Stanford with 18 min left

      • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        Wazzu coug’d it down the stretch. Utah wins 67-59

    • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Arizona State beats Stanford 67-62

  • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I see no scenario of tiebreakers that gets the Beavs 6th anymore. 7th is more likely and 8th is even possible. First round opponent will either be WSU, Colorado or Cal. Not afraid of the Cougs or Buffs. I think they’d lose to Cal. All depends on the Cal/ASU and Colorado/WSU games. No way will Stanford win in Tucson. If ASU beats Cal (likely) and WSU beats Colorado (50/50 on that one), Beavs will play the Buffs. If Colorado wins, It’s either Cal or WSU. Not sure which team wins that tiebreaker

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Well, I called 8th with 5-8 conference wins and 12-15 overall wins back on media day. I underestimated them.

      One thing to consider is that we are now going to go play somewhere our kids have some experience. I know two games doesn’t seem like much, but you could see their comfort at that venue grow during the second half of the Auburn game. That doesn’t give us any huge advantage since most of the other teams have players who at least have played there in last year’s Pac Tourney. But if you look at the rosters of each of them and break down floor time at this specific venue, you can make an educated guess about how they will perform relative to their opponents.

      Anything can happen, but I would favor us against any lower seed and give us decent odds against anyone except Utah and Zony. Unfortunately, a 7 seed puts us against Utah in our second game if we get there.

  • mckalk says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    The Beavers play hard, I like watching Tinkle coach. I wouldn’t mind a couple of CBI home games at all if they can’t make anything happen in the P-12 tourney.

    Playing is playing….if these guys could get a 20 win season out of some extra games I’m all for it. CBI is now 7 years old, NIT goes back, what 70 years. Additional end of season tournaments have always been part of the college basketball landscape.

    A winning season is locked in and that’s the huge first season accomplishment for Tinkle. Go for some icing if you can get it!

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      That’s as good an answer as there is.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        A few too many “neat thing” comments and not enough “right thing to do” statements.

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    Holy shit!

    I’ve been looking around the interwebs at all the pub about this. There is a ton of it, and it’s all positive.

    But the absolute funniest thing I’ve seen is that many comments from readers are bashing Nikegon and Altman for being classless ass-hats for not recognizing the symbolism and playing with some sportsmanship. Apparently, our younger sister school to the south is just some “win at all costs” worm pile who takes the “neat story” and shits on it by running a full court press instead.

    If anything justifies this move, exposing Nikegon for the sluts they are could be it.

    • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

      Like I was saying yesterday, from a macro level, it was a net positive move.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

        We should do it every game. If once is awesome, twice is more awesomer!

        I do like how Tinkle talked up Corvallis during that interview. R.E. was pretty respectful of that, unlike most media who ask why he’d want to go there.

        • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

          well, i did say it was a one time deal since we wont have 5 walkons again, not that i expected you to read what i said before going full snark mode.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

            Hopefully he can find 5 ball boys to honor next year!

          • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            Yes, would give you another topic and more site traffic on an otherwise slow day

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Your slippery slope fallacy just fell off a cliff.

            That’s reminiscent of Rile E. and his Acme products. 😉

  • blackbug says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    This whole argument that if starting 5 walkons is a smart decision then why not do it every game is missing one element in my opinion. The way you motivate your team as a coach for every game is different. Coach Tinkle had no seniors to use as motivational tool on Senior night so he chose a different way of honoring and motivating of his players.
    This same coach with the same set of tools led them to the 17 victories this year. So in essence you are trying to say that Coach Tinkle should change his core values when coaching. He is who is he and would have made the same type of decision earlier in the year when they were having more success if placed in that situation. I personally am very happy with the person that Coach Tinkle is and would not ask him to change. I personally think it is decisions like this that motivate Coach Tinkle’s players to play inspired for him and give them desire to go to battle for him.
    Just a few of my thoughts.

    • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      No blackbug. Tinkle is a selfish bastage and his little 30 second stunt not only f’d with us all emotionally, but also cost us a final 4 appearance this year as well as every year in the future, and might possibly be the reason we haven’t sniffed the post season in 25 years. He’s more concerned with being popular than he is with winning.

      • blackbug says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Oh, I didn’t see all the problems this decision created until you mentioned it. Of course. haha!

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      “This whole argument that if starting 5 walkons is a smart decision then why not do it every game is missing one element….”

      That one thing is reason. See the fallacy carried out in other ways by blazer here.

      Maybe we need to give angry a pass on this one. I don’t know about you guys, but I played sports where this was the norm at the final home game of the season. The players who would not be returning would be honored in several different ways, including the obligatory start and yank for that senior you only remember from signing day five years ago.

      Maybe since angry (and others?) played baseball, he doesn’t understand this concept, having never seen it before. Think about it. If a baseball coach were to start and yank five or six of his benchers, he doesn’t have them for the remainder of the game according to the rules. So this sort of thing is never seen in baseball. They can only, “honor them in some other way,” and get on with the business of playing the game as they normally would.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        It’s true I only played baseball (and fencing, actually), but I still think this comes down to a simple “if there’s something on the line, start the best 5”. Maybe I have a simple, lizard brain or something. I don’t care about emotions or gestures. I think it has more to do with that. Emotions and gestures are fine if/when you take care of business, but not before you do.

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives