29.May.2012 What do Oregon State, Indiana, and Iowa State Have in Common?
They're the only three major conference schools without a verbal commitment.
It's refreshing to see the sense of urgency on the recruiting trail.
/sarc
-
NCAA_viOlation says:
Queue the Beaverbyte post stating the same but with different wording in 3……2……1……
-
angry says:
And a not so subtle link!
Next thing you know his link font will be pink and blinking ala porn sites. -
-
-
Considering our first commit last year didn’t end up here… yippee?
Stanton was the only commit we had before June who stuck. End of June is always our pick-up time.
-
Wallace was the first commit last year. He signed…I think in early April? And Keith Heyward signed him. That puts OSU two months behind last year with a 60 something year old DB coach, instead of Keith, recruiting guys. I don’t see how we can spin no commits as a good thing and just assume the talent will be there come late June (or even next February). Recruiting takes on a momentum of it’s own, too. Players recruit players. When you have nobody committed, they can’t do that.
-
Understood. Still, recruiting never really picked up until Isaac came on board in late June. Andrews is the only player of consequence I think we got in the time previous. I think the other two can prove me wrong, but they have an uphill battle.
We always fret over this aspect. And I’m not saying it’s bad to fret over it. Better recruiting schools just do better. That’s a fact. But changing the timing is the lesser of many variables I’m looking for. I’m going to concentrate on quality this year. And I won’t argue against anyone who thinks we can do better here or there. Well, I won’t argue against whether or not we can, but the OSU staff puts their own limitations on themselves. So I won’t argue against those.
We always know that late June/early July is the time we get a half dozen or so recruits.
Will they be the right ones?
-
And I have to wonder how much Keith sold OSU if our first commit decided this wasn’t the place for him.
-
-
-
-
sparkyd73 says:
Couldn’t we take this as a somewhat positive sign? The majority of big time recruits aren’t making it official this early, the two and low three stars are mainly what you are getting at this point. Or, the high three stars that commit and often sign with someone else when they get those better offers.
-
If your saying we’d rather have no commits than bad commits, then I agree with you, but most schools have good prospects committed right now.
-
That is exactly what I’m saying Angry. Riley could have plenty of verbals from players that don’t have other options. I’m not saying that it is good that we don’t have verbals yet. All I’m saying is that I’d rather have none than bad ones, so it may not be time to jump just yet.
-
-
tim318 says:
I know it’s only Tuesday, but why not focus on baseball?
Word is that UO is “happy” that OSU got what they believe is a hard regional draw. I can’t believe that after getting swept, they still are a national seed.
-
funny to see them laughing that we have to play LSU in front of a large crowd. i think we hurt their feelings this weekend.
-
In the end we’re a better team by far. We’ll see who makes it to the CWS.
I’d rather have LSU in the regionals followed by that Coral Gables group than Fullerton at anytime early.
-
I’d rather play LSU than Fullerton, too. Oregon will not advance.
I’m not sure if OSU will, either. They’re gritty and playing good ball. I have to research LSU more, but from what I’ve seen of them they have an impressive record and ranking but might not be as good as they look on paper.
-
I think we’re set up well. Wetzler should handle Belmont, and Fry should put up a great fight against LSU.
I’m confused by our pitching situation from start to finish. I thought coming into the year that Schultz would be our long reliever with the killer B’s taking the last two innings. We went 75% of the season without Schultz taking the mound for any appreciable time. Was he injured? Suspended?
It’s nice to see him back. But I really think his absence early killed the killer B’s. Maybe those two awkaken in the post-season?
-
oneoldbeav says:
Beavs can’t control decisions by the NCAA, can’t control the heat/humidity of Baton Rouge; best to take care to avoid overconfidence and use the real or imagined disrespect as a motivator.
I think the key is gonna be the pitching staff’s response to the conditions and opposing batters. Killer B’s awakening? Too much to expect, but not too much to ask. (yes, Mary Chapin Carpenter;Joe Diffie).
As ever, one game/one at bat at a time. GO BEAVS, bring a regional to Corvallis!
-
-
-
-
-
-
HopefulBeav says:
While it’s annoying, I don’t think it’s actually that big of a deal regarding the lack of commits right now. At this time of year most programs are going for their “hail mary” recruits with the intention of lowering the bar as needed in the coming months. I’m sure the majority of the recruits the coaching staff are talking to at this point are around four star caliber and it shouldn’t be that surprising, after a 3-9 season, that none have pulled the trigger this early in the recruiting cycle. I doubt MR and co. are rushing to fill up the recruiting class with as many two and three stars as they can in May.
-
Well… there are some two and three stars I would really like. The problem is that college coaches see the same things.
-
Kendall Keys, Bryson Sullivan and Doug Brenner if you’re asking.
All three of those kids are going to be big time on the next level.
-
Oh… and no idea why, but I just have a gut feeling about Cameron Birse at QB. This is the position I worry about least under Riley, but I just like the kid for no reason whatsoever.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Link?
I heard ceremonial shovels go in the ground next week. But that rumor is a couple months old.
-
Rivals reported it. A friend emailed me about it. I don’t have any links…think it’s on their pay site, which I am banned from.
-
I’m pretty sure ceremonial shovels go in the ground next week. Actual machines on the ground may be a different date.
-
-
-
Plus the fact that they ban people for dissenting opinions.
Memberships are down.
Couldn’t happen to a worse bunch.-
-
Hey JP, I know you’re going to read this. So, go away and pretend to be the non-deviant you are. You are a sick person (based on past internet encounters).
-
-
-
-
Rueck is going to be a beast now that he has a facility to sell.
Robinson will get a boost, too. Next year will be interesting…Cunningham is such a huge loss for a defensively challenged team. I think they might take a step back while the new guys mature, then take two steps forward the following year. I don’t think Nelson plays enough D to take Cunningham’s role.
-
Don’t look for Nelson to take that role. Look for the newbies to come in hot on the defensive end. Robbins is the only question mark, and that’s due to effort, not ability.
I have a really good (to great) feeling about LMW. That kid is going to do big things here and beyond.
-
But if those new guys aren’t impact players, at least on defense, right away then I think the team will take a step back next year before taking the “next step” the year after that. Robinson, like Pat Casey, is dealing with finding pro level talent that will take all 4 years to mature. It’s not a bad problem to have until one of them leaves before they’re ready ala Cunningham…
-
I see what you’re saying. But I think you discount the development of the players who have come through recently. And the level of competition getting better from the bottom up doesn’t hurt.
It’s been a long haul. And it’s been a showing of mediocrity. But I really think we have a team who wants to compete next year.
-
But who is going to develop so much to make up for Cunningham’s intense defense, all his steals/transition baskets, and the mayhem/turnovers he created just being out there? He was very disruptive. The rest of the team stood around most of the time. Moreland is disruptive when he puts his arms up and tries. Collier is pretty good most of the time. But who else can play any D? So, it falls on the new guys…hope they can play D.
Gomis can block shots, but it’s 4 vs 5 on offense when he’s out there.
I can see teams clearing out the lanes and letting the guards go 1 on 1 vs Starks/Nelson and getting tons of easy baskets. That puts pressure on the offense to score every possession.
If one of the new guys is a great defender and scorer than that changes everything. I figure they’ll require a learning curve, though.
-
That’s my point about development. There has not been a CRob recruit who has not gotten appreciably better from one year to the next in any season.
Next year will be the key year for his system. Brandt and Burton should be the obvious leaders of this team, not necessarily in production, but in leadership.
-
-
KBeav says:
Although Starks and Nelson are below-average on-ball defenders, think of the length we could have behind them: Moreland, Collier, and Gomis. That’s a lot of long arms to disrupt passing lanes. I don’t think we’ll see nearly as many breakaway dunks which were the product of Cunningham’s superior athleticism. However, I do think we have the POTENTIAL to be a better overall defensive team, which includes rebounding. I’m especially excited for Moreland as I think we we’ve seen is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope he’s spending a lot of time shooting jumpers and hitting the weights.
-
yeah that is a good point. Moreland was super inconsistent and besides that we didn’t have a basket protector. If Moreland becomes more consistent and Gomis lives up to some of his hype we could be better defensively next year even though our perimeter D will be leakier.
-
yeah it is big but with the right shot blocker down low you can concentrate more on contesting shots and less on stopping penetration… I guess we will see. I agree there will likely be regression in the D but it is not a lock.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
beaverbeliver says:
Problem is that we need a new arena. This is classic OSU shortsightedness! Gill needs a major renovation at the least.
-
Are there any ivy native to the PNW? They should just cover the entire building in that. It would look awesome. The outside is the problem.
-
Mac Court in Eugene used to have that look. It actually looked pretty cool. It’s been a long time since I’ve been to that building, so not sure if the ivy is still there, but more recent pictures make it look like it’s been all chopped down.
http://www.cardcow.com/233397/mcarthur-court-university-oregon-eugene/
-
-
Ivy’s not indigenous. It’s a pain in the butt to remove. It gets everywhere you don’t want it to get. It destroys structures and kills trees. And it’s a skin irritant, which makes it fun for kids wondering where they got those strange rashes.
About the only indigenous trailing vine for Oregon is the orange honeysuckle (lonicera ciliosa). It grows quickly, but only trails to about 25 feet. So it wouldn’t cover a building the size of Gill without secondary planters above the entry. And it’s deciduous, so it would be barren for most of the months the building and its sports are featured.
Still, it would be gorgeous and smell great in the spring and summer months.
Other loniceras that are evergreen are Henryi and Japonica. Japonica is as noxious as ivies though. Henryi might be a good alternative. I’m not sure how far it trails. But I’m pretty sure it’s a twining vine, which are usually massive trailers requiring major support structures.
I guess Clematis armandii (snowdrift) would work well for the evergreen aspect as well. But again, it trails to only about 25 feet.
It’s too bad Gill’s entry is on the south side. Moonlight hydrangea would be a spectacular foliage for the warmer months as well.
Can you tell I like my climbers? Haven’t we talked about this before? Or was that just another conversation I had with someone else?
I thought the consensus (wherever it was) was to remove those massive, useless hedges out front, build a semi-covered plaza with a marquee, trail some orange honeysuckle to form the entry and put lights above the foliage and on the upper facade for effect.
At least the hedges are gone.
-
-
-
I’m actually a Gill fan. A major renovation is not needed in my opinion. There isn’t a bad seat in the house, and it’s loud when the fans have something to cheer about. It doesn’t need to be flashy like the Matt Knight arena to be a quality basketball building. I think the outside of the building could stand a little facelift, just to make it look more appealing, but there isn’t much I would change about the inside except for adding more actual seats with chairbacks.
-
Inside of Gill is pretty good on the court itself. And it’s gotten a lot better in the causeways and stairwells over the last couple years. I’m a fan of bleachers since apparently nobody in the whole world is supposed to be taller than six feet and sit comfortably at a sporting event, a movie or on a plane.
It could use some electrical work. But I think we’ve talked about that before as well.
-
-
-
-
-
OSU football makes a top 10 list!
-
-
-
They won’t. BYU, Oregon, Wisc. are all “not a chance games. We start the season basically with three automatic losses.
-
There’s always a puncher’s chance in those games. You never know what role injuries or external factors will play in those situations. And I wouldn’t consider BYU an automatic loss. It could be a trap game for them, considering they could be looking ahead to their nationally televised matchup with Notre Dame the next week. Maybe we’ll figure out how to stop the run this year?
-
-
Is Nelson Riley their QB this year? If so, blowout loss. There’s no reason to think they’ll ever slow a mobile QB under Banker.
-
-
-
slamadam says:
if i had to i’d probably say they actually have a better chance against wisconsin, just because they’ll have some guys at key spots who haven’t been starters in that spot before (first road game of the year, decently difficult environment) and to me it just seems like the type of game that turns into a disaster most of the time.
-
The badgers with five new coaches and another “anointed” QB from outside the program (can that work two years in a row?), along with the factors slam mentions could be a very pleasant surprise for Beaver fans.
The guys in the trenches would have to play out of their heads but, hey, Cav may have learned something from watching Casey last weekend. As for Seumalo’s D line, well, too much to expect but not too much to ask.
-
-
-
-
-
Fightingbeaver says:
Being in that category will probably give MR another excuse if the team doesn’t do well. I wonder how many excuses MR will come up with at the end of this season if he fails again?
-
-
No coach comes out and uses that excuse, but Riley threw in (paraphrasing) “we like playing difficult games” type quotes many times prior to BSU/TCU. It’s a way to appear positive while letting fans know they should expect to lose. So it is an excuse in that sense.
-
Right on Angry, but remember teams like Boise State and Fresno take big teams on……..but because they have coaches that “want to win” and prepare their team to win……they win and fans are extremely happy with the outcome. It just seems to me that MR doesn’t care one way or the other. OSU was not prepared to play some of the big teams. Game plan and play calling was no more than predictable.
-
Bone says:
I have always been a believer in if you want to he the best you have to beat the best. But scheduling tough teams coming off a 3-9 campaign isn’t the best idea to me, and if we keep having showings like Wisconsin, Louisville, penn state we have to cool down on the non conference scheduling. We have had a couple of good showings, just didn’t come away with the victory.
-
-
-
-
http://nationalchamps.net/NCAA/database/cincinnati_database.htm
Cincinnati at the Sugar Bowl (not Fiesta) for the 09 season lost to Florida; makes your original point even stronger.
-
i agree, but i think the bigger point is that scheduling so many top 25 teams for non conference games has hindered success more than anything. in games like TCU and boise in 2010, cincy in 09 and utah in 08 they played well enough to win against most opponents, and for this program, given that we play in a top tier conference, it’s probably better to accumulate more wins against more average competition than to pin ourselves against the nation’s best and take a close loss, even if it means less national TV coverage. it also gets used as an excuse or a fallback. coaches can point to playing two top 6 or 7 teams instead of a cupcake as the reason they didn’t make a bowl game, rather than address the bigger issues and shortcomings, and instead they had to lose to sac state and go through last year to make necessary changes.
-
bone says:
It is about finding that balance, you do not want to load your schedule with cupcakes and you don’t wan’t to make them to difficult, and having the right team to go with a certain schedule. In years such as 2010 it may have been a good idea to had that difficult schedule, of course at the end of the year I felt a little different. But this season, which jobs on the line and with a still fairly young team I don’t think it was a smart move to schedule both Wisconsin and BYU in the same season. There is not a lot of room for error this season as oppose to previous ones.
-
I don’t think anyone says the coaches use it as an excuse. But the pollyannas sure hold tight to that excuse. slam’s comment above is the first time I’ve seen anyone refer to the coaches using that excuse.
I personally like the tougher scheduling so long as we get home and home. Going on the road for TCU on a one off was cool for the exposure, but not a lot was going to be different than what it was. The fans are the reason our school has a team. And giving them top notch teams at home is a reason to buy tickets in my book. I feel the same about hoops. I don’t want to buy season tickets for a non-con schedule full of diploma mills. Give me some big names and let me watch some good ball.
-
-
-
-
-
bendbeaver says:
You think “we like playing difficult games” is an excuse and says that fans should expect to lose? That’s a real stretch just to fit anything and everything into your “Riley strives for mediocrity” view.
-
-
-
What’s my point? My point is that if Riley says ‘we like playing difficult games’, that has no connection to striving for mediocrity. If a coach wants mediocrity, they schedule softie ooc games. 3 easy wins and 3 or 4 conference wins makes a bowl game. That way, a mediocre team looks good on one level (hey, went to a bowl), but scratch the surface, and they are average at best. In this situation, the coach keeps his job, gets a level of national credit, and the average fan is somewhat or mostly satisified.
Play a tough schedule and you know something about your team. Play a weak schedule and win and negatives are overlooked.
-
That is it, we need to win some of those games and would be a great win for the program and to start the season off. I think that may be a reason Riley schedules them, maybe try and build momentum going into league play. But unfortunately neither of those things have happened yet. Maybe this year…..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
hellobeavers says:
How do you know that Oregon St doesn’t have any verbal commits? How does a verbal commitment become public knowledge in the first place? I was under the impression that coaches cannot talk about a recruit until they actually sign.
Occasionally that Angie Mochado will retweet some high school kid talking about how he is going to play football for the Beavers. There was one on there yesterday actually. I don’t subscribe to her service so I don’t know how good they are, but I think we do have some verbals at this point.
I feel like Wisconsin should be winnable since they have so much turnover and it’s in Corvallis. But I don’t know anything about BYU. Are they supposed to be good this season?
-
I would say, after last seasons showing, that with no real changes to MR program (other than MR possibly calling offensive plays), an outdated play book, lack luster physical training and past inability of MR to bring newby’s up to playing ability quickly, our chances against Wisconsin are poor at best.
Or whole 2012 season should be based on some kind of change. What MR and staff did in past years just did not work. But MR track record relating to change is non existent. Same old plays and game plans are which are totally predictable. Last season during games, or team looked tired after playing only 2 quarters. In today’s college football you have to be able to play 4 quarters at full steam. Bottom line is, winning games is the best motivation for teams to win more and gain the confidence they need to win big. Last year, after games, the OSU players look down right demoralized, period. Until MR and company sets their standards and goals higher than getting a toilet bowl, Beaver Nation football is in deep trouble.
-
rsteve503 says:
We should first strive to become just COMPETITIVE against the Wisconsins and BYU’s. And strive to be able to beat the Sac States with some confidence. We should NOT struggle against such teams.
Right now its back to what year was it….97? when we were emerging from the 28 yr losing streak? Just strive for a winning record. That alone will show some big recovery. Forget the bowl years.
Riley….can you do it?
-
-
-
progressivebeav says:
Comcast is going to be broadcasting all the OSU regional games:
-
Sorry, can’t make it with kids’ activities. It’s too bad. I now live about five minutes from there.
But summer is almost here, and that means we head to several shaded forest swimming holes and trails during the week.
-
ScruffyChipmunk says:
I have heard first hand stories about the recruitment of a highly regarded player who wants to come to OSU. He’s getting hit hard by a lot of big schools, both Pac 12 and SEC. Still waiting for the Beavs to show some interest. He probably won’t wait much longer … (sigh)
This is either an intentional tactic the coaches are using or just ineptness (probably the latter).
-
Don’t make me sad on such a pretty day.
Tell the kid to walk into Riley’s office and just tell the ol’ ball coach that he’s going to play for him, and he’s going to like, nay, love it.
-
Why are you being secretive about the player involved? It’s not like you’re a reporter who can’t reveal his “inside sources.” You’re anonymous here. If you weren’t a duck troll, it seems like you’d be doing what you can to help the team connect with this “highly regarded player” rather than complaining that they aren’t showing interest.
-
I don’t want to blast the coaching staff in case what I’ve heard isn’t the full story. Want the situation to play itself out and not add any fuel to the fire. Quick version: there’s a good player out there who would probably be a Beav if he got some love back. Of course, there are always extenuating circumstances …
-
-
-
-
-
Does anyone know if it’s legal for me to use OSU on a t-shirt? I finally came up with an idea I like for a shirt and want to do it.
-
If you’re making it for personal use (not for resale), then you should be fine. But it looks like you run into sticky stuff when mass producing.
http://oregonstate.edu/marketing/trademark-licensingIt looks like Steve Fenk is the first one you should ask.
-
Thanks, good info.
I wonder if there is some way around it. Now that their logo is OS, I wonder if I used OSU and never mentioned Beavers if that would be okay. Or if I drew my own Beaver instead of their logo. Hm. I’ll ask, but by asking I sort of imply guilt should anything go wrong.-
The school owns the specific design of their logo, but they by law cannot own the letter combination OSU or OS. So if you choose to use OS in a different font, you’d be fine. That is why the “O” in Oregon is theirs, because the design of the O is a specific shape ( i think Autzen stadium for the outside circle and Hayward field for the inside circle). And the interlocking OS with that specific font is Oregon States, but any other font would be ok to copy ( as long as another school doesn’t use it)
-
Okay, sweet. How sure are you? I guess I should write them just to be sure.
My lady and I are going to work on these over the weekend. I love the idea; we’ll see if we can execute it. Anyone know Fenk’s email off hand?
-
My fiance is an attorney, and we’ve had this conversation before, but never in a legal setting of course. If I were you and I were seriously considering mass producing a shirt, I’d consult an attorney to cover my butt, just in case. I’m looking for anything online that can help confirm what you’re trying to do is legal, but the google machine isn’t cooperating with me yet. I’ll send more info if I come across anything.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Here’s a little more info.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
http://tess2.uspto.gov/webaka/html/Likelihood/Likelihood_of_Confusion.html
according to the likelihood of confusion link, it sounds like you’d have trouble getting a trademark registered for your design. especially if you decided to put a beaver in it.
-
Beaver Byte says:
Can’t believe BDC’s big idea for Reser this decade is trying to spruce up the existing west side. I love how he cites “there is hope it will be less disruptive” even though it will be extremely disruptive to the hopes of being a premier Pac-12 program. Typical excuses and poor thinking to spend dollars studying this joke of an idea. More proof BDC knows Riley will mightily struggle to support one fan over 45K going forward and is actually now losing fans.
Lipstick on a Pig (OSU Stadium Expansion):
http://beaverbyte.com-
Maybe I’m wearing orange shades, but what’s the problem with Reser. Seems nice to me, but all I need is a metal plank to sit on. It’d be nice to have 60k seats, but you have to have the numbers to fill them.
P.S. your article’s lame and if I have to read “sexy” in connection to a football coach again, I’m going to stick a fork in my eye.
-
A mirrored Reser West Side by my best estimates would add about 3000 seats. BDC has stated it wouldn’t add many seats, but should add some and a few thousand seems about right. It would be under 50K though almost for sure. 48,674 is a ballpark estimate after adding 3K. That to me sounds like an appropriate number to have for awhile and a mirrored West Side gives us the long term flexibility. Perhaps it would take us another 17-20 years to do the upper deck of the south end zone but we atleast have that ability to eventually fill in an ideal horseshoe and get to 55K in 20 years should we choose. I believe in that timeframe we would definitely support that number.
Under BDC’s current suggestion of just sprucing up the existing West Side it sounds like he wants to do some styling and update the seats and such things. However we would not gain one seat and could actually lose several hundred because of nicer seats. So maybe we end up with 45K seats only which works good for Riley, since he can’t get any more fans than that, but then we are stuck with just that number for probably atleast 25 years or longer.
Remeber BDC’s quote, “there is hope this will be less costly and disruptive.” So this could potentially even cost 70-75 million or who knows how much and they aren’t going to rip it all up because they want a 50K stadium in 5 years. We would be stuck. I know Larry Scott prefers Pac-12 venues to all get close to 50K in case of a Pac-12 Championship game, so a mirrored West Side with 48,674 would be just large enough for OSU’s needs for 15+ years if we want, gives us the future flexibility and is Pac-12 worthy, including for a Pac-12 Championship that we should have confidence to bring to Corvallis in the next 10-12 years.
A exciting coach could easily fill 3,000 more seats over the next 10-15 years. If Riley can’t that tells you something right there. UNLV is moving forward with their new stadium that will seat 52-60K. It will cost 500 million. BDC stated a mirrored West Side would only need 40 million raised to begin construction and the rest would be bonded. That doesn’t sound like that difficult an effort and it sure beats being locked in at only 45K seats for the next 3 decades.
What would we do after that 30 years then when we absolutely wanted more seats and a better looking facilty? Spend 375 million instead of 150 million to do in 2046 what we should have done in 2016? Don’t forget that is after spending maybe 75+ million for whatever “alternative” improvements we do instead. So that total cost would be perhaps 450 million instead of 150 million to end up with a similar end product and not having what we really want or flexibility for another 30 years or so, all while it potentially negatively affects the perception of our program over that time.
Just because Riley isn’t good at attracting fans are we now supposed to let him hurt our future for another 30+ years by locking down a minimal vision in cement?
-
-
presleydog 
Mud&Sticks 
Beavergopher 
beaverkman