Saturday's game features two coaches at risk of losing both their teams and fan bases. Welcome to the Desperation Bowl, folks.

The Beavers have performed dreadfully under pressure and desperation. And while most fans consider this game winnable, I have doubt for one simple reason: The Beavers now have a mark on their backs; they are thee winnable game on every crappy team's schedule.

You know how the Ducks will get every decent team's best shot? Well, equally, the Beavers will get every crappy team's best shot. There's blood in the water. We already saw this play out versus Sacramento State, and we are going to see it again on Saturday (and vs WSU). Bad teams know they can get one of their few wins versus the Beavers. This has been happening for several years now. It's time we acknowledge and admit it.

So, how do the Beavers counter this? Well, my guess is they won't since they'll be blindsided and clueless that opponents see them in this light. In other words, mentally, the Beavers won't be prepared for their opponent's mindset. No shocker there.

However, emotionally they have an edge. The return of James Rodgers (and Joe Halahuni) should fire up the fans, and that will translate onto the field, for a little while at least. I'm not convinced emotions win games, though. In fact, I'd say emotions tend to lead to irrational or distracting behavior that's counter-productive.

In terms of football matchups, I think the Beavers advantage is at wide receiver. The UCLA corners tend to play off the ball, so quick passes with run-after-catch could be effective, especially given the Beavers speed at the position. However, I can also see the Bruin corners showing that look to bait Mannion and then jumping the route. Dare I predict the UCLA secondary returns an INT for a TD? Hmm not quite, but watch out for it. Additionally, will Langsdorf even have the awareness to take advantage of soft corners? It's hard to have faith in that.

The Beavers run game is shot. Jordan Jenkins isn't a legit Pac-12 back. Ward has shown nothing. Clear advantage to UCLA's run game and their defensive line here. The Bruins issue is at QB, but the Beavers aren't much better there. UCLA is also considering using their mobile, redshirt frosh QB. Ruh roh.

I think the Beavers can ride the emotional high for a quarter or two, but in the end the lack of preparation and mental fortitude once again prove the bane of this team's existence. The Beavers simply don't have tough players. They don't have leaders. They've assumed the identity of their coach. As bad as Neuheisel is, he has more passion and intensity, and thus I give him the edge. The Bruins secondary will bait Mannion and his slow delivery into several interceptions, and their run game will produce just enough.

Until the Beavers show me discipline and mental fortitude, I cannot predict a win. The Bruins come to Reser confidently believing "Hey, we can win this game" while the Beavers are hoping for the best while thinking "we don't want to screw it up and choke again", and that difference in mentally is all it takes to determine an outcome.

20-17, UCLA.

Until the Beavs lose a couple conference games, their season is alive. That makes almost every game from this point onward a "must win". Given the injuries, overall youth, and in-season transition to a freshman QB, I can't reasonably expect much. My 7-5 prediction looks too optimistic at this point. Downward revision may be in order, but I'll wait until after the weekend.

UCLA is in more turmoil than the Beavs. But, I think they feel this is one game they can win. Beavs now have the bottom feeder mark on their back, same as WSU for the past few years. Even bad teams (see Sac State) are licking their chops. Speaking of Sac State, they were trounced by Weber State 49-17.

So this is it. Beavs must win the game or they're officially the new cellar dwellers. If they win the game, confidence will improve and they suddenly have momentum. It's a huge game, even though on paper it just looks like a couple glorified high school squads going at it.

Macro issues right now: Texas et al to the Pac-16. My buddy texted me last night saying it's a done deal. I haven't seen that anywhere else, though. Frankly, I'm apathetic about the issue. Texas is clearly a horrible institution to deal with, so no matter the (increased) revenue or conference they decide on, they're a cancer that will bring it down. None of the four proposed universities have anything to do with the west coast. At least Utah and Colorado had similar sensibilities. The pod system means the original eight won't be reunited. Mentally, I'm preparing to check out of college football. The "pay for play" voice keeps getting louder, the number of teams that can compete for meaningful bowls is getting smaller, and the overall feeling of sickness is higher than ever. Why encourage or support this corruption? The answer is probably: "so I can feel superior and brag to some meat head that my school is better." That's a me issue. There are more productive ways to feel good about myself.

Some other random thoughts about expansion:

A positive is that it'll force the Beavs to live in this century. When Texas comes to Reser and sees Randy the Logger, Longhorn boards will light up with laughter and the AD might finally realize how lame we are. The cons are obvious. Small, rural schools never do well in powerful, money hungry conferences. Beavs won't carry their weight, and Texas and Oklahoma will wonder why they're subsidizing Oregon State and Washington State. Beaver fans will wonder why Dust Bowl squads were allowed to invade their conference and put that kind of pressure on them.

Of course, I am willing to give it a year or two before deciding, but expansion appears to be nothing more than exponential acceleration toward an inevitable end.

I explored this option in Sunday's comment area, but I think it warrants its own post.

There have been mutterings that the program's collapse is due to talent deficiency. I find this argument hard to accept for two reasons:

1. Oregon State has never had good talent. And I actually think the talent has improved at every position except running back.
2. The current decline began after the 2009 Civil War. The Beavers had the same talent in the Las Vegas Bowl (as the CW), but looked like a completely different team, confirming the problem was mental.

I believe the bigger issue is a string of difficult games that have subconsciously deflated and defeated Mike Riley. Follow this time line with me:

• In 2009, Mike Riley believed he could take OSU to the Rose Bowl.
• Riley lost a close, emotional game to his rival, who he then watched play in the Rose Bowl.
• The Beavers missed out on a respectable bowl, and wound up in the Las Vegas desert wind.
• During the Vegas Bowl, Riley's countenance was that of malaise, depression, disinterest. The players were also disinterested and unprepared. This was the start of a trend.
• Riley had a chance to make amends for that loss the next year in a big time game versus TCU. Again the Beavers suffered a difficult loss that took it's emotional tole on Riley.
• Rinse and repeat versus Boise State.
• After the team grinds out a few 3 point wins, the Beavers have more heartbreak in Washington. The Beavs' emotions leg down for the rest of the season.
• Beavs suffer three more humiliating losses in Washington State, UCLA, and Stanford.
• Riley loses a 3rd straight Civil War. Ducks go on to the National Title game; the chasm between the two programs has never been larger.
• The Beavs opens the 2011 season by losing at home to Sacramento State. The team looks clueless and mentally unprepared.
• Riley gets embarrassed on the national state as Urban Meyer and Chris Speilman question his coaching and suggest the Beavs aren't in the same stratosphere as Wisconsin.

Since the 2009 Civil War, the Beavers are 5-11 for a 31% winning percentage. More alarming and telling is the malaise since that game. Before then, they were able to emotionally engage and give maximum effort. It made loses more bearable. But since that game, the Beavers have "checked out", with their only inspired victory coming against USC, a team they always play well (for some reason).

So what is going on?

If you have access to the 2009 Civil War and Las Vegas Bowl, go back and watch them. Note Mike Riley's body language, countenance, and emotional involvement. What you will see is a sad, defeated man with glassy eyes. We even saw Riley's defeatest attitude last week when, as time was expiring, he let the clock bleed rather than trying for a touchdown; a touchdown that would stave some embarrassment and give his team confidence to build upon.

Riley seemed briefly inspired this spring after hiring Coach Brennen. That waned during fall camp and now it's gone entirely.

In the comment area of my last post I wrote this response to a commenter:

I don’t know if Riley even realizes that he’s not preparing as hard. Could be a subconscious thing where he knows how much effort (and luck) it took to get to that point (i.e. cusp of a Rose Bowl). I think he is depressed/defeated and more unprepared than ever. I think it’s subconscious. The guy has never had fire, but he at least needs to find the tinder bundle within.

I think this sums it up. I don't think Riley has consciously checked out. I think he thinks he is still trying, but the thing about depression is it's hard to be objective. That's why depressed people ultimately seek outside help. They cannot see the forest from the trees and untangle the subconscious web of emotions on their own.

I actually find Riley's plight to be sad, and I find myself more empathetic than angry this morning. Maybe people are right. Maybe we do need to rally around the guy and support the team rather than criticize? Nah. But I can definitely sympathize better now that I realize what is going on.

The guy needs to admit there's a problem, seek help, soul search, and dig out of this. If he can't do that, then he needs to resign. Our head coach is a defeated man.

Feel like I attended a clinic–"the dichotomy of how football, how it should and should not be played."

Every time I try to form an argument that this is due to poor recruiting, freshman, time zones, or any other bogus excuse, I always wind up deleting the sentence and coming back to the same, simple conclusion: the Beavers pay no attention to detail, and there is no accountability.

That is the bottom line, and both start at the top.

That is why last week I asked for Riley's resignation. I understand he won't be fired. I understand the process will be:

1. Give him this season to right the ship.
2. If he doesn't, then a coordinator will be fired in the off-season.
3. Give him next season to finish the rebuilding job.
4. If that doesn't happen, another coordinator will be fired.
5. Give him the next season to right the ship.
6. Rinse and repeat.

This is OSU, an ag school where change happens slower than grass grows on the Tundra.

I get it.

I've been a Met, Jet, and Beaver fan for most of my life. I can deal with loses. Many losing teams are even fun to watch if they play the game correctly. What I can't deal with is lack of detail, being unprepared, or lacking intensity. These are three problems that originate from the top. When I say "the top", I mean Riley, but I also mean above him. If the AD cannot reprimand or fire his subordinates, then he has set the tone, whether intentionally or not, for chaos. A coach who cannot be fired rotates QBs. A coach who cannot be fired keeps incompetent friends on staff. A coach who cannot be fired comes to games unprepared. Etc.

Why do studies show professional players perform their best in contract years?

Why do they perform their worst after signing long term deals?

Obviously because having food on the table and money in the bank are motivating factors.

It is truly scary how quickly the wheels are falling off. A vicious cycle is about to ensue. A cycle where donors bail because the product is poor, the product becomes even poorer because donors have bailed, recruits decommit because the product has become poorer, and the product becomes poorer because recruits decommitted. Etc.

What will make me bail is not the losses. It is how the Beavers play the game–the mental component. I cannot witness weak, unprepared players with no attention to detail. I just can't. Sound fundamentals are mandatory. The fundamentals have never been good at Oregon State. It's why I've been a critic for years. But, I take no solace in being right. I'd rather the problem be corrected than be right. And I am officially right. When Urban Meyer mocks the team, there is no debate.

How do I know the issue is coaching? Because I closely watch other teams. For example, Boise State. That is the most sound, fundamental team in the game. While Chris Peterson might not have won vs Sac State or Wisconsin, I know a Peterson coached team would showed up with a sound game plan (i.e. mitigating weakness/playing up strengths), executed it perfectly, and if they lost it would be because the opponent was just better. However, I constantly leave Beaver games with a nagging "what if?" feeling, and to me this says the Beavers are not necessarily worse than their opponents, but instead they are just much more psychologically and fundamentally unsound. They are mentally weak, making critical errors at the most inopportune time. They don't understand how to seize moments. Has anyone preached the importance of third downs to this team? They don't seem to get it. All of this starts at the top. Demanding results from players, preparing them for what to expect, how to handle it, etc.

I watch Peterson or Kelly interact with their QBs. It is intense, demanding, and has a point. Leaders emerge from their programs. I watch OSU interact with their QB, and it is an unstructured mess that hopes for the best. You can see it in each coach's respective eyes–I don't need an interview or admission of guilt. The problem with Oregon State is simple: Accountability has become an illusion. Attention to detail, which was always poor at OSU, is now non-existent. The latter is what drives me nuts and is testing my patience. I think that's true for all of you, too. If the players were sound and giving maximum effort we could deal with these loses. When was the last time you saw an OSU player dive for the sticks and give the extra effort that's the difference between winning and losing? It doesn't happen. The players are now representative of the coach, and the coach is representative of the higher administration and placated fan base that is willing to forgive and excuse.

I have ideas on how to resolve the issue, but they're not worth discussing in detail. The short of it is that your money talks. Use that right wisely and make sure the appropriate people know how you feel.