Looks like Byrne may have gotten his answer...

[Coach34]

<font size="2"><font face="Tahoma"> In it, the paper quotes freshman Kevin Rhoderick as follows: <span class="story">"I was considering leaving, but I'm here for the next few years," Rhoderick said. "I'm here for good. Me and coach had a meeting (Wednesday). There was speculation he was leaving. If Casey is gone, I'm gone. With him back, I'm here. So there's nothing to worry about."

Lets hope this is true and we can move on to the next candidate</span></font></font>

 

[Coach34]

<font size="2"><font face="Tahoma"> In it, the paper quotes freshman Kevin Rhoderick as follows: <span class="story">"I was considering leaving, but I'm here for the next few years," Rhoderick said. "I'm here for good. Me and coach had a meeting (Wednesday). There was speculation he was leaving. If Casey is gone, I'm gone. With him back, I'm here. So there's nothing to worry about."

Lets hope this is true and we can move on to the next candidate</span></font></font>

 

[GoToHellOleMiss.sixpack]

Yeah, let's hope great coaches start turning us down.</p>

 

[Coach34]

as I have said, I really respect the two titles and all, but 3 postseason appearances in 14 years (including missing out this year and finishing 8th in a weaker 9 team conference) doesnt do it for me. Plus, I dont think someone that hasnt left the West coast is going to do well in the South.

Taking 11 years to get Oregon St into a regional doesnt make him a miracle worker by any means

 

[patdog]

then you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. The SEC champion only went 3-3 against 2 mediocre PAC 10 teams this season. The PAC 10 is the one league that can legitimately argue that it's as strong as the SEC from top to bottom year in and year out.

As for taking 11 years to get OSU to postseason, you're not quite telling the whole story. When Casey took over OSU, they didn't play in the PAC 10. Or at least nothing like the current PAC 10. They played in the PAC 10 North, which was OSU, Oregon, Portland, Portland St., Washington, Washington St., and Gonzaga. But their conference didn't get an automatic berth in the NCAA unless its champion won a 3-game series against the PAC 10 South Conference. Not surprisingly, the PAC 10 South champions dominated those series. OSU didn't start playing in the current PAC 10 until 1999. After moving from such a weak conference to such a strong one, predictibly, they sucked their first 2 years. Then were slightly below .500 but generally competitive for 4 more years, before becoming a major national power.</p>

 

[Todd4State]

You have to remember Oregon State didn't even register on the baseball landscape when he took over, and even worse, they were in the PAC-10 with the likes of USC, UCLA, Stanford, Arizona State, and Arizona- not to mention Cal, Washington, and Washington State aren't bad either. No one cared about baseball at OSU.

Then, he finally gets them good enough to go to the postseason and they go to three straight CWS and of course the two NC's.

I love Cohen, and he would still be my first choice, but I think it is probably fair to say that the OSU job was worse than UK's in the beginning- or at least as bad.

 

[Coach34]

its a ****** conference, but it is definitely not as strong. The fact that they have 9 teams vs our 12 makes them weaker for one. But year in and year out, I dont think you can dispute the SEC is the toughest, followed by the ACC and then the Pac-10.</p>

" When Casey took over OSU, they didn't play in the PAC 10. Or at least nothing like the current PAC 10. They played in the PAC 10 North, which was OSU, Oregon, Portland, Portland St., Washington, Washington St., and Gonzaga."

So, I am supposed to be excited because he couldnt make a regional after playing that schedule? Are you being serious?

"But their conference didn't get an automatic berth in the NCAA unless its champion won a 3-game series against the PAC 10 South Conference. Not surprisingly, the PAC 10 South champions dominated those series."

And the SEC only gets one automatic berth for the Tourney champ. So because they couldnt step up and beat a team from the South Pac-10 in a 3 game series, i'm am supposed to have sympathy? I didnt realize this was an impossible feat. Poor Coach Casey.

" OSU didn't start playing in the current PAC 10 until 1999. After moving from such a weak conference to such a strong one, predictibly, they sucked their first 2 years. Then were slightly below .500 but generally competitive for 4 more years, before becoming a major national power."

So, after 5 years at OSU, he couldnt have them good enough to compete with good schools? Who's case are you trying to help here- mine or yours? Thanks alot, you have managed to convince me and few others i'm sure even more that he probably shouldnt be our coach.

"</p>

 

[Coach34]

"but I think it is probably fair to say that the OSU job was worse than UK's in the beginning- or at least as bad."

Oregon St in the two years before Casey got there went 31-18 (20-10 in conference) and 35-16 (22-8)...how in the 17'ing hell is that even close to what Cohen took over at Kentucky?

And it STILL took him 11 years to make a regional

 

[patdog]

Using that logic, the Atlantic 10 must kick *** since it has 14 teams. But to use an objective measure, Boyd's conference ISR ratings rate the PAC 10 as the toughest conference in the country. And by a larger margin than the difference between the #2 conference and the #6 conference. RPI still rates the PAC 10 better than the SEC. There's a reason our conference champion couldn't break .500 in 6 games against teams with a combined losing PAC 10 record.

As for their easy conference schedule early in his career, expecting him to get a team to a regional would be about like expecting the SWAC champion to beat the SEC champion in a 3-game series to get to a regional. Not gonna happen. It's damn near impossible for a team to be nationally competitive without playing good competition during the season. With OSU's schedules when Casey took over, there's pretty much no way he could have gotten them to a regional. And yeah, it did take him 6 years after joining the PAC 10 to become nationally competitive, but it only took him 3 to get reasonably competitive in a very tough conference (remember this is a conference where a team can go 10-14 and still win a national championship). How long do you think it would take a coach at Southeastern Louisiana to get competative in the SEC? Because that's about the jump in competition that OSU faced when they left the PAC 10 North and joined the PAC 10.</p>

 

[Coach34]

"As for their easy conference schedule early in his career, expecting him to get a team to a regional would be about like expecting the SWAC champion to beat the SEC champion in a 3-game series to get to a regional. Not gonna happen. It's damn near impossible for a team to be nationally competitive without playing good competition during the season. With OSU's schedules when Casey took over, there's pretty much no way he could have gotten them to a regional"

Yet the University of Washington, playing in that same league, with that same schedule, was able to make regionals...So, its not impossible for Washington, but it is impossible for Oregon St?

I'd advise you to stop now

 

[futaba.79]

regarding conference strength. These are all-time CWS win totals. I see several PAC-10 teams on the list.

</p> <table class="wikitable"> <tbody> <tr> <th>Rank</th> <th>School</th> <th>Number</th> </tr> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>Texas</td> <td>78</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>Southern California</td> <td>74</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>Arizona State</td> <td>59</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>Miami (FL)</td> <td>46</td> </tr> <tr> <td>T-5</td> <td>Oklahoma State</td> <td>38</td> </tr> <tr> <td>T-5</td> <td>Stanford</td> <td>38</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7</td> <td>Cal State Fullerton</td> <td>34</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>Arizona</td> <td>33</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> <td>LSU</td> <td>29</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10</td> <td>Florida State</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

 

[patdog]

Yeah, Washington did make it to 3 regionals from the old PAC 10 North. That's 3 times out of 40 years or so of the regional format. It's still pretty damn hard to get to a regional from that conference.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

in the Pac-10 this year with an 11-13 record. Not stellar, but not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. FWIW that's a better conference record than they had last year, when they won the CWS.
Not that being right is important to you or anything...

 

[patdog]

Their poor record is largely the result of playing the 7th toughest schedule in the country this year.

 

[dogfan96]

and LSU has 5 of the SEC's 6 titles.</p>

 

[Coach34]

you may want to check those numbers since 1990, because all those wins from the 70's and 80's when nobody cared about college baseball except the West has come to an end. And thanks to LSU, the SEC has more titles than the Pac-10 since then

 

[Coach34]

Their poor record is largely the result of playing the 7th toughest schedule in the country this year.

</p>didnt attend the Ricky Stansbury School of Scheduling

 

[Coach34]

in the Pac-10 this year with an 11-13 record. Not stellar, but not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. FWIW that's a better conference record than they had last year, when they won the CWS.
Not that being right is important to you or anything...

in a 9 team conference. According to the tie-breaker, the NCAA has them 7th in the Pac-10. You're right about one thing- definitely not stellar</p>

 

[futaba.79]

"year in and year out" the SEC is the stronger conference, which is not the case. </p>

 

[Coach34]

"year in and year out" the SEC is the stronger conference, which is not the case</p>

Well, yeah it is. Since 1990, the SEC has worn more titles and had more appearances in the title game. It has shown its strength once the conference made the decision to make a commitment to baseball.

 

[futaba.79]

if we're going to arbitrarily pick starting points, I'll go with 2000. The SEC has 1 title since then and 3 appearances in the championship game, compared with 2 and 5 for the PAC 10.

 

[Coach34]

if we're going to arbitrarily pick starting points, I'll go with 2000. The SEC has 1 title since then and 3 appearances in the championship game, compared with 2 and 5 for the PAC 10.

</p>being arbitrary...I was showing the time as to when the SEC starting making baseball a priority, as well as the time Casey starting getting into his career. I'm not disputing the strength of the Pac-10 in the 70's and then somewhat of the 80's.

 

[williecunningham]

Move on to the next candidate? Like Cohen? A guy, who by your measurements has never accomplished a damn thing. What about that SEC regular season championship, you say? According to your standards, that doesn't mean ****. Its all about how you do in the postseason. Right?

 

[MaroonInNashville]

34, you are an idiot...

 

[Todd4State]

whether it was as bad as UK or not. At any rate, it certainly isn't USC.

Those numbers show how me hard it was for them to make a Regional based on the schedule that they had to play. Can you imagine having to win 40 games during the regular season just to make a Regional at State? If UK had those same numbers, they would have been a shoo-in for a Regional. Both have/had crappy fanbases, and OSU's old conference thing has already been beaten to death, and is also valid.

We can argue all day about which one is better/worse, but I'm not really concerned about his first 10 or so years just because three of the last four he had made it to the CWS and won it twice. It's not like he took over, won a couple of NC's, and then tanked. So, even if he was a crappy coach for the first 10 years, he has obviously learned what it takes to be good.

But like I've said, there's a certain degree of risk with anyone we hire. But if Byrne's list looks anything like ours, we probably will be OK. Just be open minded because just about any of the candidates- Cohen, Casey, O'Conner, McDonnell, Corbin, and Showalter- would probably be a great choice.</p>

 

[Coach34]

34, you are an idiot...

what point have I made that is idiotic exactly?</p>

 

[MaroonInNashville]

Go back and read virtually every thread you have ever posted in. Logic and/or common sense absolutely defy you, particularly when those two attributes are brought to bear against any argument that you might make. Granted, once in a great while I find myself mysteriously agreeing with you, and at those times I question my own sanity....that is all I have to say, and I will entertain no further discussion of the matter...post away...

 

[Stormrider81]

As always you alter the rules of the argument, sometimes in the middle of the discussion, so that your point will prevail. You can't ignore the history of college baseball because "the SEC didn't care." Newsflash, since the SEC "started caring" the conference hasn't exactly rolled out of Omaha every year with a national title. LSU had a great run under Bertman back during the era of Gorilla Ball. The SEC hasn't won a national title in baseball since 2000. Who else besides LSU has won one since the SEC "started caring?" The SEC is a great conference, but let's not go overboard here. In terms of postseason titles it has fallen woefully short, and that with the built-in advantage of being located in the warm weather states.</p>

 

[Coach34]

lets dont discuss facts, just make an overall bs statement...

 

[patdog]

the SEC hasn't had a national champion in almost a decade and the only SEC team other than LSU to ever win a national title was Georgia in 1990. In this century, the SEC has 10 CWS participants to the PAC 10's 9. Both conferences have 2 runners up and no champions. Doesn't seem to me that the PAC 10 is really a weaker conference.

 

[futaba.79]

won the last two. 3 other runners-up for the PAC 10. Not bad for a weak 9 team conference.

 

[patdog]

Move on to the next candidate? Like Cohen? A guy, who by your measurements has never accomplished a damn thing. What about that SEC regular season championship, you say? According to your standards, that doesn't mean ****. Its all about how you do in the postseason. Right?

With Coach 34, it is all about the postseason, unless it isn't. Stans can win several SEC West titles, an overall title and a SEC tournament title but never make a Sweet 16 (yet) and he's just little Ricky average coach. But if Cohen wins an SEC title and tanks in the postseason, then he's a great coach and the top choice to take over at MSU. And Casey can be the first coach in a decade to win 2 CWS titles in a row, but he's not a good coach because he didn't do much in his first 10 years as a coach (Coach 34 should look up John Wooden's record in his first 15 seasons as a coach. 5 NCAA tournaments with no success).</p>

 

[patdog]

Especially since the only reason we're talking about this is the OSU titles!

 

[futaba.79]

Peaches drag you down to the level of the competition. It happens.

 

[Coach34]

basketball and baseball history at MSU is quite different. Nowhere have I said Casey is a bad coach. I have raised questions as to why it took so long for him to achieve the success he attained. I think comparing him to Richard Williams is very valid, especially considering he missed the tourney again this season. Based on his history, its not unreasonable to say he wont make a regional next year. I'm glad he turned the job down because I prefer other candidates over him.

Other rebuttles from previous replies:

1. Comparing him to Wooden is ridiculous- Wooden didnt miss the Tourney once his run started
2. I didnt say the Pac-9 was weak, I just believe the SEC to be stronger. The SEC has 10 tough teams a season in conference, the Pac-9 may have 7.
3. Considering Cohen took over a terrible program, I think he gets a little more time to be judged. Oregon St had two great seasons before Casey took over, and State was 2 years removed from a FF when Ricky took over.