It's being reported (rumored?) that Mannion will be the starter.

I think Riley is handling this QB situation poorly. The players and coaches have a game to prepare for, now they have to deal with distractions and media/questions.

It reeks of desperation.

It also was a waste of time and/or poor talent evaluation during fall camp. If Mannion was the best QB, he should have been practicing with the 1s for the past month.

If true, this is somewhat shocking.

I agree Mannion looked better on Saturday, but people thought Sean Canfield looked better than Matt Moore at one point, too. Then as Canfield played more he showed weaknesses. There is a huge difference between relieving for an ineffective QB and starting the game with the expectation you have to win it (or at least manage it). Mentally, Mannion is in a totally different situation this week, and on the road rather than at home. Unless the kid is a prodigy, this is going to be rough.

The smart play is to start Katz and have him on a short leash, just like last week. It avoids the media circus and would also take pressure off Mannion if or when he is needed.

I do not want to see Mike Riley fired. I don't think Decarolis wants to fire Riley, and I don't think most fans want to see Riley fired.

He has done a good job in exhuming the program, and he is an honorable guy who we all admire as a human being.

That makes for an awkward situation for everyone involved. On one hand, Riley is a person fans love, but on the other hand, even the most ardent supporters are realizing his coaching limitations. Today's loss hauled an elephant into the room. A big mamma who isn't leaving anytime soon. This problem is going to get worse as the season progresses. I don't want to see a good person getting hated on or disrespected.

It's why Riley should spare everyone the awkwardness by jumping ahead of the inevitable and retiring. Riley claims to love OSU. If that is true, he should realize he's taken OSU as far as he can, and it's time to pass the baton.

There are fans who will say this is an overreaction to a bad loss. But, I see this conclusion as the result of a bigger trend. I don't need to rehash all the bad losses, the lack of passion, etc. We all know the story.

Let's relate this to something people understand more than coaching: money. There are two terms in the stock market called "support" and "resistance". Resistance refers to the point where a stock lacks buyers. For example, say Apple is trading at $399 a share, but the psychological barrier of $400 scares off investors. This might be a point of resistance. Sometimes resistance is at a more random price with no clear cause other than investors agreeing, "This is the most we are willing to pay." Support, on the other hand, is the opposite of resistance. Support refers to the point where buyers step in and say, "This is cheap, the stock should not go lower than this price." Support and resistance tell a trader if he is buying too high or selling too low.

Well, this concept can be related to Mike Riley. Riley's support level is 5 wins per season, and his resistance is 9 wins. Expecting Riley to break out of that range and go to a BCS/Rose Bowl would be like a trader expecting Phillip Morris to break out of the 60 range and trade at Apple-esque valuations. That is just not going to happen without several major growth catalysts.

See where this is going? We know what Riley is, and there is no growth. So, why hold? The growth story is over. Keeping with the stock analogy, we're in the dividend years. Those are okay times for equities since an investor can still beat inflation, but when it comes to modern college football, slow growth equals lost jobs. In fact, I'd argue Riley is actually regressing, and thus has no value other than as a respectable face for a tier two franchise.

What I am describing is everyone's career arc. Ricky Henderson was once the fastest man. Babe Ruth was once the strongest. Bill Gates was once the most innovative. You and I are the working class, but one day our skills will be dated, too.

Time is cruel, even to good people.

Mike should realize he's hovering near his support level and without a catalyst that usually legs down. Even further, that even his resistance level is no longer good enough. There's a young generation that, due to Riley's (moderate) success, expects more. There is an irony in success. Think about it: take Led Zeppelin's worst record. It's still better than 99% of music. But harsh criticisms via high expectations make them victims of their own success. Do well and people will expect better (or at least equally well).

I am not overreacting. I am not saying Riley needs to retire today. But if this season continues down its current path, Riley needs to step aside in order to spare the fans and AD awkwardness while also preserving his dignity–the trait for which he's most known.

What I see:

Beavs doing a ton of little things wrong. This is on the coaches. Can't have a DT with his head down as the RB runs right past him. Can't have a RT trying to block a LB and letting the DE blow past him and make a tackle for a loss. Can't have a sure interception hit the DB and then he gets flagged for PI. Etc.

Hopefully people now see why I questioned Katz. He just doesn't get it. He has no feel for the game, and his football IQ is low. The only decent unit has been the run D. They've been quick to the edge and cut off some plays.

One more thing: everything we do on offense goes horizontally. I assume this is due to the bad o-line getting no push? Passes are horizontal, RBs run horizontally, etc. Opponents make vertical play look so easy, too.

There is still time to win this game, and unless Sac State scores once more I think the Beavs will find a way to do that. But if Sac State gets another TD this one is over.

I'm hoping for a 20-17 victory at this point. That's best case scenario.

Use this thread for game comments.

Ps. Sorry to get his up so late. We actually just had a 4 hour power outage. I thought I'd miss the game.

Just came back on, though!

It's difficult to understand why Paul Buker & Co. are spinning Sacramento State as a threat.

Oh wait, no it isn't. They need to sell ad space.

You know what's great about running an ad-free blog? I don't care about anything, and I answer to nobody! Time for some non-controversial, non-ad-selling real talk: Beavs win this game by twenty.

The following are arguments for a possible Hornet's upset:

The Beavers are shorthanded.

The Hornets passed for a billion yards versus their last seven opponents.

The Hornets are ranked #25 in FCS.

Let's look at these individually.

• The Beavers are shorthanded–Yes, yes they are, but this argument assumes the backups are either incapable or worse than Sacramento State's starters, neither of which is true. If they were bad players they'd be playing in the FCS.
• The Hornets have a passing attack–Yes, yes they do, and they ran up numbers versus their last seven opponents, a prestigious list consisting of powerhouses Montana State, Northern Colorado, Eastern Washington, Northern Arizona, Portland State, Idaho State, and UC Davis. Enough said.
• The Hornets are ranked #25 in FCS. Being ranked #25 in FCS is not the same, or even similar, to being ranked #25 in FBS. Take a look at the teams ranked above Sacramento State:

14. Chattanooga
15. Lehigh
16. Pennsylvania
17. New Hampshire
18. Jacksonville
19. Liberty
20. Stephen F. Austin
21. Southern Utah
22. Eastern Kentucky
23. McNeese State
24. Western Illinois

There isn't a respectable opponent on the list until #13, Cal Poly. Sac State is 0-3 all-time versus the Pac-10, and in those games they've been outscored 133-27 for a Delta of -106. Ouch. Incidentally, Oregon State put a 40-7 beating on them in 2003 (Cal and Stanford hold the other two Pac-10 victories).

So, in short, I am not too worried about this game. A discussion about the point spread (27.5) would make for a better debate. Personally, I think injuries and freshman jitters prevent them from covering.

36-16, Beavers.