Today I play Devil's advocate to the devil. Is Riley a victim of his own success?

For example, the Iphone. It was inevitable this gadget would lose luster as habituated customers' expectations rose. In the 90s, what Riley was doing was great. Fans weren't habituated to 5-7 wins; they were habituated to Pettibone(head's) 0-2 wins. So Riley steps in and he's a genius, a human Iphone! Now we're used to 7 or 8 wins, and this seems like a top (just like the Iphone 5 for Apple). In corporate America it's not such a big deal…CEO acquires some cutting edge assets/technology, change the business model from luxury good to economies of scale, raise the dividend, and everyone is happy. In football, where the CEO (Riley) has less control over end results, it's harder to predict where this goes.

I do know that there is a timing and relativity variable to all this. If the Iphone came out in the 1970s when people were using wired pay phones, it would have a much different impact than in 2007. It's why Riley seems like such a hero to some. In 1997 Oregon State was tantamount to said wired pay phone. Riley was an Iphone in that environment. But I am not sure timing and relativity are enough to forgive Riley completely and label him a victim of his own success. If he weren't a victim of himself (i.e. costing himself wins each year) I think it would be easier to put that label on him.

One positive I can say about Riley is he's an old dog who is open to new tricks–they just take a painfully long time for him to learn and incorporate.

Thoughts?

There are certain losses that don't bother me. For example, losing to Oregon (I know that's blasphemy in this circle, but Oregon had the better team, system, and coach). A win versus Oregon would have been shocking; a loss was understandable.

There are other losses that bother me weeks, months after the fact. Two from this past season were Stanford and Texas. Part of the reason being the Beavs matched up well with those teams and held 10 point leads late in the games, so as a fan you could taste the big-game-victory (versus a team not named USC). But I think the bigger reason is that the team let up once they had the lead. To me, this is the disturbing aspect of both losses. I don't have any tangible evidence, just my observations. For example, in the Stanford game, most think it was over when Vaz fumbled. But I noticed momentum shift after the Romaine FG. What happened? Riley fist pump and shit-eating grin. People will say, "You're upset with him for cheering a FG?" No, not at all. Want to know why I'm upset? You know that saying "he wears his heart on his sleeve"? That's Riley. So when that kick went through, his heart/gut was all over his face. Faces tell stories. There are scientific studies that explain this. Just Google it if you're interested. But anyway, I am really sensitive/perceptive to these things, and what I picked up on was a coach who thought he won the game there. And from that moment on it was all down hill. Did they players pick up on what I did? Same thing happened after Storm Woods TD run in the Alamo Bowl. Riley showed relief/glee. Heart on the sleeve. He should have rallied the guys and explained that finishing the game would now be even harder because Texas was running out of time, and thus would be more desperate and focused than ever.

This isn't a "pick on Riley because it's January and we're bored" thread (if anything he's having a great January, recruiting looks fantastic except for the LBs).

It's a thread with two goals:

1. Vent my anger over playing three quarters in these games so I can hopefully move on.

2. Make others aware of Riley's facial/emotional cues so they can look for this trend in the future and decide for themselves.

Of course, the Washington loss bothers me, too. But that was just a bad decision…sticking with a guy too long. That's more understandable than a coach getting emotionally ahead of himself in the third quarter of big games.

You can go off topic and discuss other things.