|
Post by vbc1 on Dec 10, 2019 9:24:07 GMT -5
^ there's another advantage to Ohio St. that a lot of schools don't have, and that is the resource that the Men's Volleyball team could/can be. That men's team is among the top 8 or so almost every year, and won the Championship recently... maybe three years ago. That may have been a factor in the AD deciding that not making the Tournament is not acceptable. I don't think it hurts to have a good men's team, but it's not that important. Uh, I would argue that if you want to win a championship that it most certainly helps to have a men's program at your school. Of the actual 10 programs that have won a NC, 7 of them have men's counterparts. I'd say that's an advantage if you ask me. (actual number is 6 now with UOP cutting their men's program). I'm not saying that OSU must hire a men's program coach in order to be successful. All I am saying is that in recent years, women's programs have been hiring men's team coaches at a higher rate than normal. Yes, experience does help, obviously. But, OSU just hired Burch, who although has won championships at every stop he has been at for the last number of years, but no head coaching experience at all. It would not be out of the question for OSU to hire someone without any head coaching experience. You could argue that the landscape is different for men's and women's programs, but it's not all done with just one coach. A quality staff can help ease any of that strain quickly. There are many qualified candidates for this job, and any of them I am sure will do a better job than their previous coach. Looking forward to seeing who they select.
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Dec 10, 2019 10:17:59 GMT -5
Ohio State has the budget to compete at the highest level and has a very supportive SWA. There are also significantly more volleyball players in Ohio than Nebraska. Women's volleyball at the OSU doesn't have the tradition of Nebraska or the fan support, but competing for national championships is about talent. And that can change in a heartbeat. It's not about talent, it's about the elite talent. There isn't much of it anywhere, and where it does exist, the big 4 and the top programs of the next tier pick through it pretty quickly. Look at the PrepVB black ink that bluepenquin put together. Recruiting for volleyball is analogous to recruiting for men's basketball, not football. Where Ohio State can lean on proximity to talent in football, it's not that simple in volleyball. It's like trying to steal McDonald's all-americans from Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas. Ohio State can pull one here and there, but those other schools stockpile them year in and year out. This will only get more separated when Boosters can start paying athletes, though that will probably benefit OSU a great deal more than most other schools, w/exception of Nebraska, Penn St. & Texas. I don't know that west coast schools care enough about any sport to pay out competitively but admittedly I have a bias and I consider the lack of butts in seats at home games to be indicative of what my bias enforces already.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Dec 10, 2019 10:32:35 GMT -5
This is an entertaining thread Reading through this thread, I'm going to say that Fisher & Skinner are the two strongest resume's who have good familiarity with the region and would consider making the move. DBK would be a somewhat bold but good hire just after them. tOSU is not a top 10 job, but I would put them in top 20-25 despite the lack of historical success. I'm looking forward to following the hiring process The last time tOSU was looking for a HC was after Jim Stone retired. He was an institution in the midwest and they have always had successful seasons interspersed with with not so successful ones. As with most schools. The thing that changed in the intervening years is probably the expectations that the institution has had about the program. I think having the men's program winning their titles make the administrators thinking about where the women's volleyball is headed. Also at the time of Stoney's returement, this was a very sought after job. People saw this as a very good job, a sleeping giant so to speak, kind of like Wisconsin. People are expecting the kind of dramatic successes for these kind of programs after Sheffield took Wisconsin to where they are now. The difference is that Barry Alvarez was completely behind Sheffield, giving him full reins and the resources to significantly improve the program. What Sheffield has is not what Waite had in terms of resources, some of it is earned after he arrived in Madison of course, but the AD was very much on board. A great head coach is a huge asset obviously, but how much or how little he is being handcuffed plays a much larger role in the success of the program. I think who tOSU hires tells a story, but how much resources they give the coach, on top of what they already have is a more telling story.
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Dec 10, 2019 10:36:02 GMT -5
Wait, I thought OSU was the supreme job, creme de la creme...fully capable of being the counter to Huskers, Penn St and Wisc...the dream job who could lure any coach away to coach there...did I misread these many posts or is there another version? You did misread that because nobody said that. The key to a good smart ass post is more smart, less ass! Someone will always take offense to sarcasm, but if we let that be the deciding rule, there would be no comedy, no satire and very little fun. Sorry you got butt hurt over my exaggerated caricature of what you and a couple of others have been pushing. Maybe learn to laugh or ignore? Name calling is usually considered a poor response.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Dec 10, 2019 10:47:34 GMT -5
At the end of the day tOSU has the resources to get the type of coach they may be targeting. It's just a matter of how important volleyball is to them if they get that coach.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Dec 10, 2019 10:49:54 GMT -5
At the end of the day tOSU has the resources to get the type of coach they may be targeting. It's just a matter of how important volleyball is to them if they get that coach. It’s Khat bell isn’t it. That wasn’t about helping team it was audition right?😂
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 10, 2019 10:54:39 GMT -5
I don't think it hurts to have a good men's team, but it's not that important. Uh, I would argue that if you want to win a championship that it most certainly helps to have a men's program at your school. Of the actual 10 programs that have won a NC, 7 of them have men's counterparts. I'd say that's an advantage if you ask me. (actual number is 6 now with UOP cutting their men's program). I'm not saying that OSU must hire a men's program coach in order to be successful. All I am saying is that in recent years, women's programs have been hiring men's team coaches at a higher rate than normal. Yes, experience does help, obviously. But, OSU just hired Burch, who although has won championships at every stop he has been at for the last number of years, but no head coaching experience at all. It would not be out of the question for OSU to hire someone without any head coaching experience. You could argue that the landscape is different for men's and women's programs, but it's not all done with just one coach. A quality staff can help ease any of that strain quickly. There are many qualified candidates for this job, and any of them I am sure will do a better job than their previous coach. Looking forward to seeing who they select. Fair enough. I don't really agree with your conclusion, given that Nebraska and Texas don't have men's programs (the California schools having men's programs to me speaks more to the historic popularity of volleyball in that area of the country than any real correlation with national championships on the women's side--granted, that doesn't include Penn State in the calculation, but one outlying example doesn't really change my opinion). Like I said, I don't think it hurts, and it probably helps to a small degree, but I noted some very successful men's programs that don't have successful women's counterparts (though I somehow forgot that Long Beach State used to be a powerhouse in women's volleyball, though it hasn't been for quite a while now). As such, I stand by what I said that I really don't think it's all that important for success, but yes, all things being equal, it's nice to have.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthebeach on Dec 10, 2019 12:08:18 GMT -5
The people shunning this as "not a top-ten job" baffle me. In just about every sport, OSU is a top-ten job. Resources out the a**, a winning tradition for decades across the board, a BRAND NEW VOLLEYBALL FACILITY, and a location smack dab in the heart of volleyball country (no offense Cali). OSU is a draw nation-wide and it has the motor behind it to churn out titles. The Carlston era just grew stale and lost luster. Kids had no excitement around Buckeye Volleyball. The right guy or gal changes that in a heartbeat. Look at Kentucky pre-Skinner (who absolutely will not leave UK for the B1G) - a nation-wide school name, history of success and good resources - no excitement or prestige before, now its a top destination. That, in contrast to a proven winner like Shane Davis taking over at a dead end exemplifies how vital the program and the athletic department's ceiling is to future success. This is an elite job. No job equals wins and titles on its own. The best only offer the runway for takeoff. OSU has that.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 10, 2019 14:53:20 GMT -5
Let me give you an example from my more familiar world, that of Women's Softball.
Texas is similar in some ways to tOSU, in that they're flush with money and have high expectations of the athletic teams.
2002, Texas recruited the premier softball pitcher in the country, named Cat Osterman. The rest of the team fairly sucked, but in Softball the pitcher can pitch every innning of every game if that's how the coach wants to manager her arm. Texas went from nowhere in 2001, to top 4 in the country for those four years Cat pitched the vast majority of the innings, during which time she took a year off to play for Team USA in the 2004 Olympics.
The year after Cat left, 2007, Texas stopped being top 4, and struggled to be top 16 ore even top 32. Year after year. At the same time, Oklahoma became a top 4 program. Oklahoma won two national titles and was in the hunt every single year.
Meanwhile, while Texas is rarely top 16, at Oregon, around 2010 an ex Kiwi men's softball pitcher became the coach of a team that was not in the top 50 before he arrived. After two years, he transformed the expectations, got top level recruits, and became a top 16 and then top 8 program just about every year. Eventually he wanted a second raise, and in 2018 the Oregon AD did not meet his demands.
Texas hired that Oregon softball coach, for almost double the total compensation he got at Oregon, which was about $225,000 at Oregon. The next season, Texas made the sweet 16, which is softball is called the Super Regional. They will probably be approx. top 8 every year going forward when he get all his recruits in because of his winning reputation and the fact that recruits want to be a part of that. Texas went from RPI 30, 30, 37, to RPI 8 in one year.
Do you see some similarities between UT's experience in Softball, and tOSU's in volleyball? Rich athletic Dept. 100 year history of revenue sport success. Peer schools nearbye (or to be fair, in athletic terms, not quite peer) are killing it, winning Natty's or at least Elite 8 every year, and you aren't, in a key non-revenue sport that gets on TV a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Dec 10, 2019 15:17:28 GMT -5
Let me give you an example from my more familiar world, that of Women's Softball. Texas is similar in some ways to tOSU, in that they're flush with money and have high expectations of the athletic teams. 2002, Texas recruited the premier softball pitcher in the country, named Cat Osterman. The rest of the team fairly sucked, but in Softball the pitcher can pitch every innning of every game if that's how the coach wants to manager her arm. Texas went from nowhere in 2001, to top 4 in the country for those four years Cat pitched the vast majority of the innings, during which time she took a year off to play for Team USA in the 2004 Olympics. The year after Cat left, 2007, Texas stopped being top 4, and struggled to be top 16 ore even top 32. Year after year. At the same time, Oklahoma became a top 4 program. Oklahoma won two national titles and was in the hunt every single year. Meanwhile, while Texas is rarely top 16, at Oregon, around 2010 an ex Kiwi men's softball pitcher became the coach of a team that was not in the top 50 before he arrived. After two years, he transformed the expectations, got top level recruits, and became a top 16 and then top 8 program just about every year. Eventually he wanted a second raise, and in 2018 the Oregon AD did not meet his demands. Texas hired that Oregon softball coach, for almost double the total compensation he got at Oregon around $450,000. The next season, that team made the sweet 16, which is softball is called the Super Regional. They will probably be approx. top 8 every year going forward when he get all his recruits in because of his winning reputation and the fact that recruits want to be a part of that. Do you see some similarities between UT's experience in Softball, and tOSU's in volleyball? Rich athletic Dept. 100 year history of revenue sport success. Peer schools nearbye (or to be fair, in athletic terms, not quite peer) are killing it, winning Natty's or at least Elite 8 every year, and you aren't, in a key non-revenue sport that gets on TV a lot. I think I understand. You are saying that Ohio State sucks at softball because they can't attract a good coach even though they have more money than god? And you think that relates to the VB team as well? All Ohio state truely cares about is their football team
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 10, 2019 15:18:26 GMT -5
Good lord, I know you're being cheeky but that is really over the top. The point is when a Texas, or Florida, or tOSU, sees fit to pay attention to a non-revenue sport such as volleyball or softball, they have the resources to turn it around, almost on a dime.
Somebody posted on here maybe a couple of months back that the new AD at tOSU has given indication that underperforming sports (not just football or men's basketball) need to start performing. Can't remember the details but it was a good example.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Dec 10, 2019 16:28:40 GMT -5
OSU has made a final four in Ice Hockey and a NCG in Lacrosse this decade. Both are regional sports that OSU is not historically good at. If they can claw their way up the ladder in those sports, then they can do the same in VB.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Dec 10, 2019 16:37:09 GMT -5
OSU has made a final four in Ice Hockey and a NCG in Lacrosse this decade. Both are regional sports that OSU is not historically good at. If they can claw their way up the ladder in those sports, then they can do the same in VB. How many colleges compete in those sports? How much money does OSU spend relative to the top schools in those sports? How big of a feeder program is there in this country? I think OSU can be a volleyball powerhouse if they wanted to put the resources behind it. The question is how much do they want it? And the measure of that is budget.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Dec 10, 2019 16:38:46 GMT -5
Hiring the right coach can make a huge difference.
At Washington, Bill Neville coached for 10 years, leaving in 2001 with a record of 126-136. Only 3 tournament appearances, the best ending in the round of 16.
He was replaced by Jim McLaughlin, who won a title within 3 years and built a program that still hasn't missed the tournament, even after JMac moved on.
For some it's kind of odd to not think of UW as a regular top 16 team. But before JMac they weren't even the top team in Washington.
Wisconsin and especially Pittsburgh are somewhat similar stories.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 10, 2019 18:32:44 GMT -5
If anyone wonders where tOSU stand in comparison to other elite DI schools in terms of committment to athletics, there is an interesting competition called the Directors Cup, that weighs accomplishment each year in just about every sport colleges offer, and ranks schools. It's pretty much a barometer of how well each school is doing in non-revenue sports, both men and women. Here is a rank order of how schools have done over the past 5 academic years, current year excluded. So 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015 final standings, in that order below. 1. Stanford: 1/1/1/1/1 = 1.0 ave. 2. Florida: 3/3/3/5/4 = 3.6 ave. 3. USC: 5/4/4/4/3 = 4 4. UCLA: 6/2/11/5/2 = 5.2 5. Ohio St.: 12/7/2/2/7 = 6.26. Texas: 4/5/7/9/9 = 7.0 7. Michigan: 2/6/6/3/19 = 7.2 8. North Carolina: 10/13/5/7/5/ = 8.0 9. Penn St.: 13/12/8/20/8 = 12.1 t10. Florida St.: 7/9/13/22/11 = 12.4 t10. Virginia: 8/21/19/8/6 = 12.4 12. TAMU: 15/10/12/12/17 = 13.1 13. Georgia: 21/24/8/8/15 = 14.1 14. Oregon: 27/24/9/10/13 = 16.6 15. Duke: 9/11/32/24/20 = 19.1
There may be a school missing, as I limited my search to schools that had cracked the top 10 at least once in the past 5 years. So a school with very consistent 11-15 might have been missed.
The Ohio St. University cleary is committed to excellence in male and female non-revenue sports, which make up 90% of the weighting in this ranking. There was a reason for dismissing the current coach that is in keeping with this record of excellence. So to the person who wrote above that tOSU is only concerned about football, that is ridiculous. And overall, clearly tOSU is a top 10 university in support of its athletics from Football down to rowing, equestrian, archery, etc. male and female. I'm going to guess that tOSU's non-revenue sport budget is also among the top 5 in the country.
|
|