I can't do a write up for this game because I have to prepare for a 6:45am job interview.
I'll be checking in here and there via radio, but mainly relying on you guys to post updates. It will be interesting to see if the Beavs can keep things rolling away from Gill versus a solid Washington State team.
I've got a bad feeling about this one.
Time: 7pm
TV: No stream or tv as far as I can tell.
Radio: KPAM
Nobody knows, but one thing we know for sure is that Quizz is a drama queen who likes to toy with the fan base. His behavior reminds me of Brett Favre, who needed constant reinforcement, love, praise, etc from fans and media alike for him to return from retirement time and time again. What these men both have in common is size. Is this need for love "short man syndrome"? I do not know.
If Quizz leaves, the team takes a hit. No doubt about that. An average running back sauntering behind this year's brutal offensive line would probably go for 700 yards and 5tds. He creates yardage on his own. On the flip side, Riley is on the record saying he's playing the same offensive linemen next year, so unless an underclassman blows the coaches away in camp, it's the status quo. In such light, one would expect and encourage Quizz to leave for the NFL and completely understand the decision. If I were him, I would not take another 350 hits unless my coach and teammates were more both willing and able to support and surround me with the talent necessary to maintain my goals, body, health, and labor value.
Quizz leaving for the NFL brings up another interesting point. Would the odds of him leaving be diminished had he shared carries with McCant's over the past three seasons? I cannot say, but logic tells me the answer is yes. Being a running back, he knows the average carries one can take in a career and maintain production. This highlights once again the stupidity of Mike Riley's one back system. For those who rationalize it (i.e. to reduce their inner tension, also known as cognitive dissonance), try to come to grips with the fact that Riley might just lose his best player, and your favorite Beaver, because of it.
The Arizona Wildcats present a bad match up for the now running offense of Oregon State. OSU won both contests last year by slowing the game down and frustrating Arizona, who prefer to play up tempo. Derrick Williams is the player to watch. He makes practically every shot he takes (~70%) from three point range, and ironically shoots a bit lower than that inside the arc. Arizona is solid all around, 50% from the field, 40% from three point range, and almost 80% from the line. Granted, Arizona was a more confident and refined team (than the Beavers) to the start of the season, and they've therefore been able put up these gaudy numbers versus poor teams. The one decent team they've played, BYU, beat the Wildcats.
I think the Beavers will try to play a 2-3 zone or match up zone, maybe even some man to man defense. Playing the 1-3-1 versus a team that shoots this well beyond the arc would be disaster.
I am trying to figure out where the Beavers have an advantage. The Beavs are bigger at every position, but they are not tougher or stronger. Perhaps their advantage lies in the intangibles: the home court advantage, the confidence from having won two straight, and the fact that the team plays with poise when the precocial, fledging Roberto Nelson is on the court. The team has definitely "gelled" and improved over the past few games. Being realistic, you have to figure it's going to be a one step forward, two back deal with the Beavers. But, being optimistic, you can definitely point to the glaring confidence they finished with in the ASU game. I'm somewhere in between. I can't ignore the fact this team is young and relatively immature (i.e. not knowing exactly what it takes to win), but I can't ignore the confidence and fire I saw building over the past two games, either.
Personally, I'm excited about what I've seen of late and can't wait for tip-off. Sure, the smart money is on 'zona, but this game has upset potential.
At this moment, 4pm, I am completely jacked about tonight's home opener. Over the past two games, Craig Robinson has found his lineup (having Roberto Nelson helps) and substitutions. The past game, Lathan Wallace and Calvin Haynes played around 10-15 minutes each, which is still too much, but a big step in the right direct.
What I also loved to see was that Robinson is learning the value of Collier. He's great at zone and man defense, has a good mid-range shot, and is the only player on the roster with an ACC or Big East body. The guy is, in my opinion, the best of the young crop. That can change as time goes on, but what I see is a player who makes all the right decisions. I have yet to see Collier botch (see Joe Burton for the antithesis) any facet of the game. Brandt is another player coming on strong. What I love about these two is the solid fundamentals that a more athletic player like Jared Cunningham seems to lack.
One more thing I'd like to mention: what I saw last game was a team playing with confidence. It makes all the difference in the world. Now, can Arizona State break that confidence with a few early baskets? Most definitely, and my hunch is that will happen. But my overall point is that I have kept saying I believe this team will have a watershed moment at some point this season; while we are not sure that happened last week, we did see what things will look like when it does.
Below is the scouting report on Arizona State:
SCOUTING ARIZONA STATE: Arizona State enters the game on a four-game winning streak and a 7-4 overall record. The Sun Devils are led by 2009-10 Pac-10 Coach of the Year Herb Sendek and are the only Pac-10 team to win 20 games in each of the past three seasons. ASU returns three senior starters and five lettermen from last year's second-place Pac-10 team that finished 22-11 overall and 12-6 in Pac-10 play. Sophomore guard Trent Lockett leads the team in scoring at 14.7 points per game and is shooting 57 percent from the field. Seniors Ty Abbott and Rihards Kuksiks average double-figures in scoring at 12.8 and 11.5 points per game, respectively.
Arizona State plays a tough zone defense. Expect a ton of passing around the perimeter from the Beavers and many frustrating offensive possessions. To win this game, OSU will need to play intense defense, as they will not score more than 60 points. My key players to watch are Jared Cunningham and Devon Collier. Why? Because I think slashing to the basket is the way the Beavers win this game, and these are the two guys who can do it. If they can succeed, also watch for Nelson and Starks on kickout passes. That's how you'll see a semblance of offense tonight. If play in the paint falters, or they settle for long jump shots, expect a long night for the Beavers.
TV/Radio: FSN Northwest, KPAM (860 am)
Cognitive dissonance as defined by psychology.org:
According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior.
Two factors affect the strength of the dissonance: the number of dissonant beliefs, and the importance attached to each belief. There are three ways to eliminate dissonance: (1) reduce the importance of the dissonant beliefs, (2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs, or (3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.
Dissonance occurs most often in situations where an individual must choose between two incompatible beliefs or actions. The greatest dissonance is created when the two alternatives are equally attractive. Furthermore, attitude change is more likely in the direction of less incentive since this results in lower dissonance. In this respect, dissonance theory is contradictory to most behavioral theories which would predict greater attitude change with increased incentive (i.e., reinforcement).
It's my opinion Oregon State suffers from this phenomena more than any major university. It starts with the administration, trickles to the athletic department, and finally ends with the fans.
Everybody knows Aesop's fable called the Fox and the Grapes. In the tale, a fox cannot reach the high hanging grapes, and so he tells himself, "I did not want those grapes anyway as they are probably not ripe." By doing so, the fox reduces the cognitive dissonance in his mind, making him better able to cope with his own short comings.
You might say, "okay Angry, but we are not foxes and we do not care to eat grapes." Fine, how about eating unhealthy food, or drinking alcohol. These things kill human, yet most humans want to live a long and healthy life. These contradicting thoughts create tension, and people resolve and justify this tension (i.e. their destructive actions) by claiming one or many of the following:
So how does this relate to Oregon State?
Well, the most obvious relationship is with Mike Riley's recruiting philosophy. As Steve Sanner astutely noted, Riley goes for the "low hanging fruit"…this is not at all different than Aesop's "The Fox and the Grape." Instead of building a proverbial ladder to reach the fruit he desires, Riley instead rationalizes his decision, saying things like "I want them to be 4 or 5 stars when they leave" and claiming to pay no attention to the recruiting services. The former is rationalization from making bad decisions, and the latter is a result of cognitive dissonance known as an ego defense mechanism. If Riley has an "A List" and fails to sign players from it, what he should do–to use the Aesop analogy once again–is build a ladder to reach the high, ripe fruit.
Does any of this sound familiar when you consider the average Beaver fan's perception of recruiting? Even to this day, most fans will welcome with open arms the unheralded 0-star recruit with no DI offers. They will firmly believe, like a dirt farmer with his lottery ticket, that player X is the next Mike Hass and Johnathan Smith, but there is never a peep about Joel Cohen, Ricky Herod, Rory Ross, and the much greater percentage of low-ranked recruits who never made it. Why do you think that it? The answer is because admitting or acknowledging failure lowers serotonin, creates a need for ego-defense mechanisms, and makes the individual accept their average existence.
With regard to the University as a whole, they are also guilty as charged. Selling the "Family Atmosphere" because they cannot sell things like tradition, prestige, academics, etc. The problem at such a large scale is that the University cannot speak the truth due to public perception. If OSU were to admit they are average across the board, enrollment would drop. Individual coaches and fans can admit flaws and relieve themselves of cognitive dissonance because the audience is specialized, smaller, and wants to hear the truth and how it will be improved upon.
People sometimes ask me why I put so much effort into running such a "negative" site. This is the reason why: cognitive dissonance. There is too much of it around this program. I want to admit what we are and why we are what we are, and until every last fan does so, I will continue to do it. This is somewhat of a plea, but I have pride and will not stoop to outright beg. But Beaver fan, by rationalizing the signing of Kellen Clute, Blake Harrah, et al., even if they turn out to be Shanon Sharpe and Dick Butkus, you have just done yourself and university an injustice because you have accepted the low hanging fruit. Demand the building of a ladder, find the materials to do so, pick the high fruit, and if it turns out to be sour there is no cognitive dissonance to rationalize as you can take solace in knowing you have tried your best. The bottom line is this: adjusting your attitude to accept the problem is not a solution. Changing your behavior, or demanding others change their behavior that is causing the problem is a solution. Demand more.