I am more of a nerd than a jock, so sometimes I wonder to myself, "Why are you so enamored with football?"

Well, the real-life drama is an obvious reason, but equally intriguing is the strategy, or mental component. As an avid chess enthusiast, I see similarities between the two games. This is not surprising, since chess mimics the battlefield and football is often described in tactical and bellicose terms.

Along that line of thought, I'd like to present two concepts from chess relevant to Mike Riley and the way he manages the Oregon State Beavers.

The first concept is "Material Advantage."

In chess, this is simply when a player has (a) more pieces than his opponent or (b) has higher valued pieces than his opponent. Both scenarios present a material advantage, since one player's material (i.e. his pieces) are stronger than his opponent's. For those unfamiliar with chess, there is a scoring system where a pawn is worth 1 point, a knight 3, a bishop 3, and so forth, all the way up to a queen, which is worth 9 points. This is similar to football where the QB would be the most valuable piece.

It is fair to say most opponents have a material advantage over the Beavers. Numerically speaking, they do not have more players, but they do have better players. Some would argue that coaches who allow their QBs to run do have "more pieces" since the (mobile) QB requires a dedicated defender. I'd agree with that. Doesn't it feel like the Beavers have a material disadvantage when they face mobile QBs? That is because they do.

In chess, one way to overcome material disadvantage is through positional advantage. For example, while a pawn is, generally speaking, a weak piece, if it is placed in the center of the board it becomes a pillar. Further, an opponent might have stronger pieces, but if they are trapped behind pawns and cannot break their rank, they are rendered useless. Many master level games are won via nothing more than the position of pawns.

Relating this to Beaver football, it is fair to say Mike Riley is a poor tactician. His weak pieces (e.g. offensive linemen) are used in a manner that exaggerates their weakness. A master tactician would turn the weak piece into a strength. How to do this? Possibly through misdirection, shovel passes, tosses to the edge, pulling a guard, etc. Plays that do not require power or long, sustained blocking. Regarding my second point above about pawns restricting stronger pieces from breaking rank…this relates to the Beavers as well. Markus Wheaton was the best player on the field last Saturday, but his impact was minimal, especially when compared to BYU's (less talented) WR Cody Hoffman. Metaphorically speaking, Wheaton was like a queen trapped behind pawns. Why is this? Well, the chess player (i.e. Danny Langsdorf/Mike Riley) does not understand how to free him.

This brings up another point, which is to discuss strategy versus tactic. In chess, strategy would be the big picture (or game plan). Understanding the opponents tendencies, weaknesses, etc, and formulating a general plan. Tactics are specific, short term attacks aimed at executing the strategy and attaining the end goal. The Beavers play aimless football. It makes me wonder what the big picture strategy is, and we all know about Langsdorf's tactics.

A team like Boise State has a material disadvantage, but what makes Chris Peterson a genius is his understanding of positional advantage. BYU is another great example. And even Oregon, with their undersized offensive line, has a material disadvantage which they overcome. How do these master "chess players" do it?

For insight, read this quote by Grand Master Larry Kaufman:

I would like to make reference to a famous brilliancy by Kasparov against Shirov [DH: see 3rd game on linked page.] played in 1994. I consider it one of the greatest games ever because Kasparov sacrificed (successfully!) a full Exchange (rook for knight) for purely positional compensation. Any strong player would have made the sacrifice if it had been the Exchange for a pawn, since Kasparov was left with markedly better pieces and pawn structure, but it seemed to me (and probably to most other masters) that the compensation would not be worth nearly two pawns.

However, considering the principles of this article, since the queen and the extra pair of rooks remained on the board, and since only two pawns had been exchanged (with no files fully opened), the real value of the rook for knight exchange was only about a pawn and a quarter, and since the positional compensation did appear to be worth more than a pawn, I can now see that the sacrifice was at least reasonable, if not clearly favorable.

You can see Kasparov's brilliant yet unorthodox line of thinking in Chris Peterson, Chip Kelly, and Bronco Mendenhall. Chip Kelly's spacing, read option, punt and field goal formations, rarely conceding 4th downs, etc. Mendenhall putting his TE in motion at the goal line, realizing a defender does not have time to close in that short a distance. Peterson matching up his best players on the opponents' weakest player at all times, and then drilling execution into his players until it becomes their nature, etc.

Kasparov and Bobby Fisher are the two greatest chess players in history, and both had the uncanny ability to understand when to sacrifice material to gain position. The Ruy Lopez is probably the most popular chess opening, but Kasparov preferred the unconventional Indian Defense due to it resulting in an open board that allows for better counter play.

In the Pro Set, Mike Riley and Oregon State run the equivalent of the Ruy Lopez. It is tried and true, but so common (and some would argue dated) that over the years opponents have mastered how to defend it. As I tried to explain above, in games of strategy and tactics, many times the value of a piece either do not matter or can be manipulated via positioning. My opinion is that Oregon State lacks dearly in understanding the rules of leverage, spatial relationships, creatively sacrificing, etc. What makes a chess player brilliant is the same thing that makes a head coach brilliant–understanding leverage, or the worth of material relative to situation, space, and time.

Mike Riley does not understand how to leverage position to increase the value of his players. In other words, he uses his material identically at all times. It is for these reasons more than any others that Mike Riley will never be more than an average coach.

This thread is for discussing the BYU/OSU game.

If you have Comcast, check one of the channels broadcasting the CO/WA game. Right now Comcast is broadcasting that game on two channels, so it leads me to believe that's an error and one of them will show the Beavs' game. We'll see.

Oregon State is riding the high of their first victory, but I can't shake the nagging feeling that this process will be more "one step forward, two steps back" than full steam ahead.

Into town comes BYU. In many respects this is the perfect opponent for this week.

• They are better than Arizona.
• They're not as good as Arizona State.

Considering the Beavers played ASU tough and beat Arizona, BYU is in my opinion the perfect incremental test.

Unfortunately, I don't think they win the game. The reasons are several:

1. BYU players are "more mature." This is a euphemism. Due to missions, BYU players are all 25+ years old. Normally, this might not be a big deal, but considering how many underdeveloped freshman are playing for the Beavs I think it's huge.
2. BYU's passing attack is precise and methodical. The Beavers do not perform well versus tacticians.
3. Bronco Mendenhall is a perfectionist and strong motivator. His team will be ready from the opening kickoff.
4. Riley Nelson, the Cougar's new QB, is mobile. Mark Banker has not shown the ability to slow mobile QBs.
5. BYU runs a 3-4 defense with three 300lb+ down linemen. Sean Mannion is going to see LB and DB blitzes for the first time. He has been turnover prone versus the more standard 4-3 defense, so it leads one to reason this might not turn out well. The LBs will be free to make plays in the run game, too.

The only clear advantage the Beavers have is their WRs versus the Cougar's DBs, but that will be marginalized if they're forced into a one-dimensional game.

In short, I really want to pick the Beavers in this game. I'm 80% on the year, with my only incorrect pick being Sacramento State. If I'm 67% on the year come Saturday afternoon I'll be a happy man. However, I just don't see it. I view Bronco Mendenhall as the better coach. Mike Riley & Co. have a ton to prove. Until they do it on the field, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt in these close match ups.

27-14, Cougars

Once again we're reminded what a week and a win can do. Today, nobody is writing "fire coach xyz"…I must say, it makes our message mixed and weak when all it takes to placate the fan base is one win versus a lousy squad. The fact is these coaches never have or will take the Beavers above a third place bowl. Time keeps chugging by, but their resumes remain the same (or worse). But, okay, we can put that on the back burner and be glad about the win. If we're going to criticize when they do wrong, we have to praise when they do well. It's also exhausting to write the same, negative things over and over. I get it.

Bottom line: A win is always good, but let's not ignore the big picture trends. Riley & Co. have to silence critics via results, not excuses, justifications, hopes, etc. As long as we don't lose sight of that, I'm fine celebrating this win.

Moving forward, the BYU game has a "one step forward, two back" feel to it. Even though BYU is an average squad, I see the Beavers tripping up. I'll go into the reasons why more on Wednesday, but in the meantime discuss anything you'd like and/or ask me any questions you have.

Game thread for today.

Not much to say other than Go Beavs!