88 COMMENTS

    • Yep. First day JC players can sign their LOI. This should be the immediate impact players. We are solid on a few (Luton, Hodgins, etc) but could get some additional key recruits. Could be an exciting day for beavers.

  1. Was Gary Payton really that good? What’s happened to the basketball team? With their talent they should be beating these teams in the pre-PAC season. What happened to the defensive effort they put in Tinkles first year. Disappointing.

    • It’s been the same reason all year and no it’s not GP2.

      It’s the loss of Duvivier and Bruce that hurts the most. Not having them has forced guys like Muller and Sanders into extended playing time. Manuel and McLoughlin are having to play many more minutes than projected. Stacy would have been benched long ago if there were any decent players behind him.

      And the JC players just haven’t contributed anything. Dew and Stacy are complete busts.

  2. Again, congratulations to OSU CB Xavier Crawford, named to USA Today Freshman All American team. Don’t see it in the twitter feed yet.

    I hope this helps in recruiting, as it speaks well of OSU’s coaching (Hall).

    • Either help or hinder. If you’re being recruited for a specific position and you know there’s a freshman all American in that position would you be inclined to look elsewhere?

  3. Looking for reasons to feel positive about the Jaylon Lane situation:

    1) As BlackBandits points out perhaps he’s posting the “gotta do whats right for me and my family” because “…he wants to go here (OSU) instead of a texas school and is getting shit for it…”.

    2) He is actually flipping but it’s because he’s been told that Nixon is coming to Corvallis.

    Speaking of Nixon if he does sign with the vols or the cocks here’s hoping that doesn’t mean that Evans is going elsewhere too.

  4. OT: don’t do much in the Twitter department but have noticed Nebby fans might be even more annoying the Utah fans. So many with some sort of superiority complex. It’s like: Dudes, your team hasn’t been great for 20 years, and you live in Nebraska. Take it down a notch.

  5. So here is a general question, as this is a general thread.

    I came of age in the early 90’s, watching the Jerry Pettibone Wishbone ground game. I always enjoyed watching that style of football, which was run by several prominent programs at that time, namely Oklahoma and Nebraska.

    I recall a few years where it seemed like the program had turned a corner, and was just shy of a winning season, but lost some close games (1993-94 are probably the years I’m thinking of).

    My question to those of you who have more reliable memories of the era, is what was holding the program back? Was it entirely the class of athletes? Bad luck? Just “the way things were?”

    My feeling is that that type of offense, coupled with a few pretty good defenses in that era, SHOULD have been able to put together a winning season. So why didn’t it happen?

    • The offense never really caught fire. I personally think the best season was 1994 when they finished 4-7 and were only outscored by 16 points for the season. The problem was that the offense only scored 223 points in 11 games. In 1995, they finished 1-10 and the defense only gave up 237 points, but the team scored a whopping 136 points.

      In 1996, the defense fell apart and Pettibone got the axe. Rocky Long had the defense going for about three years and they played with “their hair on fire”. And there were some good athletes on offense at times, but not enough to overcome the elite off the P-10. And you talk about GA’s team not being able to pass the football.

      • Some teams also ran the Veer (Houston with Bill Yeoman) which I belive was a full backfield. Nebraska also always seemed to have a tight end who could block and catch a pass when needed.

    • Was some time ago, but what I recall was the PAC-10 at the time had a lot of high powered offenses? No one else I think was running wishbone in the league at the time; wishbone by its nature isn’t one that scores quickly or often, and Oregon State (as it did for a good portion of its 28 seasons being below .500) didn’t have a roster during that time to compete with USC, UCLA, UW etc.

      Also, while it may be difficult to “play” against on the field, the Wishbone wasn’t a new or innovative offense; during that time, my feeling was that the vast majority of the PAC-10 defense coaches /knew how to best approach/ game planning against it.

      Teams that were successful with it at that time like Oklahoma, Michigan beat you with superior players, or else ran very disciplined programs re: Air Force, Army, Yale.

    • Scholarship levels made it so we couldn’t draw mid-level talent away from teams stocked with high level talent. Pettibone and Long were actually very good talent evaluators and recruiters. Those OU teams that were great in the late 70s and the NU teams that followed in the early 80s were great because great players were recruited there… by Pettibone himself. But what he also had was a cast of thousands standing on the sideline, not playing for any opposing teams.

      He wasn’t really able to break that at NIU. He had one or two good years there when all his first and second year recruits had matured, his third and fourth years. But he was going to decline there, or at least cycle between poor and good seasons. That’s the same cycle he had at OSU, against better talent. his third and fourth years were his best, but you had third stringers on Pac Ds who could beat the weakest links on our O. Once those excess talents were distributed more widely by reducing scholarship limits, all schools had a better chance to implement whole systems.

  6. ESPN – Pac 12 QB rating for 2016:
    Oregon State: The Beavers played three quarterbacks and none of them would start at any other school in the conference.

    Ouch.

  7. Final Regular Season Power Ratings Chart:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l2T3pgiHk1WKiNvQZUzWzWYR3Oo5HoBxrxcCbnl2LcY/edit#gid=27

    This is not copied from anyone else but it’s a system I designed personally and reflects the overall performance on the field of each team vs their opponents, the location the game was played, and the expectation.

    Scroll all the way to the right to read the chart correctly.

    Current Power = the overall performance grade of the team
    PWR RAT = Talent Rating of team (a general rule but not absolute is that this # was the expected place finish at the start of the year)
    HF = Home Field Advantage gained in calculation during a home game
    Sch STR = Average per game of the opposition’s “Current Power” listing
    S R = Rating of schedule difficulty average (Sch STR) compared to the entire list
    Conf YPG = Yards per game MARGIN averaged per conference game (All games for Independents)
    YPP = Yards Per POINT
    YDS/YDSA = Yards/Yards Against
    W0-CH = Comparison of each game on a team’s schedule if it were played this week
    PD = Projected Final Amount of Wins (Games Won + Upcoming Games Favored)

    PAC-12 BOWL GAMES
    Alabama -7.5 over Washington
    Colorado -6.5 over Oklahoma State
    Washington State -9.5 over Minnesota
    Penn State E over USC
    Utah -7.5 over Indiana
    Stanford -1 over North Carolina

    FINAL +/- Current Power Rank vs Initial Power Rating Increase/Decrease Ratings for Pac-12
    (e.g. Washington had a PWR RAT of #8 and finished at #4 so they are +4)

    Oregon State +50
    Colorado +43
    Washington State +36
    Washington +4
    USC -2
    Utah -7
    California -24
    Stanford -33
    Arizona State -55
    UCLA -60
    Arizona -70
    Oregon -74

      • Oregon State had a much lower start projection than Colorado. Colorado ended much higher but the rises were comparable considering where each team expected to finish and where they actually did.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here