It is a thought I've had many times over the years.The thing is, in the past when I pondered this question, it was always, "Hmm yeah I wonder how this will end?", and that was the extent of it. Before Mike signed the lifetime deal, I figured he'd work one more short contract (2 or 3 years) and then retire. That seemed like a reasonable path for all parties involved.

But now? I want to see an amicable split, but the (inevitable) breakup is looking uglier with each passing day.

Does Riley coach this lifetime contract until we're beyond 2019 and he misses enough bowl games to nullify it? I mean, that seems unlikely, doesn't it? Riley will be 60 next year (he'd fit right in if he just moved into the stands).

So what other options are there?

What I consider most likely now is Riley becomes persona non grata, feels betrayed by his hometown, and retires. It's passive-aggressive and non-confrontational, which is how OSU and their fan base like to work.

Some other possibilities and the odds I give them:

• He dies on the job (70%)
• He gets promoted to AD (15%)
• He gets fired (10%)
• He coaches out the entire contract (5%)
• He wins a Rose Bowl and rides off into the sunset (<.001~%)

What other possibilities are there? What do you think is likely? Do you, like me, find it interesting to ponder how this era ends, or, like most things OSU, is this topic boring?

PS. We hit 1 million views (on the new site) today. We had 250k on the old wordpress blog before moving over. Good job maintaining enough passion to care about this crap. It's hard. Rage on!

The Beavers haven't had a good punter since Kyle Loomis. The Alexis Serna and Johnny Hekker experiments costs the Beavs field position, which cost the team games. Some will argue that it's pointless to waste a scholarship on a punter. I guess I am old school in believing special teams (notably field position) is one third of the game, and a great punter is an invaluable weapon. "Waste" the scholarship, please, and sign one less Pankey or Krebs. Good deal, yes?

This story goes back to March 7, 2010, when Mike Riley made the decision that Johnny Hekker was a better punter than future Ray Guy Award, Ryan Allen. Wouldn't it be nice to have him returning this fall? Twas not to be. Now we have Tim McMullen. He sounds decent. A step down from Allen, but a step up from Hekker, but that's from reading biased media reports, so really who knows at this point.

Another huge loss is long snapper Marcus Perry. The guy never made one bad snap in four years. Michael Morovick, a walk-on, talks over. Keep in mind Perry was a scholarship player. It'll be interesting to see the difference between a scholarship long snapper and a walk-on.

So, my question to you: are a punter and long snapper truly "wasted" scholarships as the apologists say, or are these positions just as valuable (if not more so) than the 5th string LB who uses up these potential scholarships, yet never plays a down? And yes, Hekker was on scholarship eventually, but as I noted in that March 7th, 2010 article, Riley blatantly awarded the wrong guy. So maybe I should rephrase: is awarding a good punter or long snapper a wasted scholarship?