Riley's weak and feeble comments in the Oregonian reignited my rage. Just in time for the season! The guy is already banking on a loss versus TCU. His quotes on the game are ridiculous:

Riley said the TCU game at Cowboys Stadium will tell him a lot about the 2010 team’s character and personality, win or lose.

“You’ll be hardened. You will know who you are,’’ said Riley.

“Then it’s a matter of who gets better as the season goes on," he said, because he predicts the Pac-10 race "is going to go down to the wire."

1. Riley is already talking about "character" and "personality"…also known as "moral victories".

2. Riley says the team will be hardened, suggesting a loss. Wins do not harden teams.

3. Riley says, "it's a matter of who gets better as the season goes on." Gets better?? Meaning what? He plans on the Beavers playing badly? If the Beavers play well enough to beat the #10 team in the country, then they won't need to get better. The comment was a slip of the tongue that clearly shows Riley figures he'll lose the game.

Ugh. It's sickening to read things like this from your University's head coach. Simply put, it is not a winning mindset.

The following things must change for the Beavers to be both mentally and physically tuned heading into the new season:

Depth–The number one problem, by a long margin, is the lack of quality, experienced depth. Having zero or one viable backup at key positions limits what a head coach can do during spring and fall camp preparation. The Beavers usually field a quality starter at every position, but behind that starter is always a crummy walk-on or some guy who needs three years of seasoning to even become a backup. They've been able to have successful seasons because they've avoided injuries at key positions, or the injuries they did have were at the one position of depth, quarterback. Riley knows depth is either bad or under-developed, so he pampers his starters during camp, and when the season kicks off, they're not ready.

Scrimmages–Riley needs to let the starters (a) actually play in these games and (b) go full speed. This problem is intimately connected with lack of depth. It's not hard to understand that if Player X is valuable, and Backup Z is crummy, then the head coach will protect his asset more than if Backup Z were able to step in and produce to a level similar to Player X. While it's smart to protect assets, it's not smart to coddle them, and that is what Riley does. When the lights turn on and the games matter, guys are feeling their way through the games and playing a step slow (i.e. practice speed). Ironically, as we all know, players are more often injured when playing at half effort than full speed. If Riley is this concerned about players' health, he should recruit guys who are further developed and able to step in before their junior year.

Expectations–For the Oregon State Beavers, expectations are not set before the season's kickoff. They are set a few games into the season when things either (a) go well or (b) go in the tank. If things are going well, suddenly you hear musings about the Rose Bowl. However, if the team starts poorly, Riley will talk about getting better, building character, and learning about his team. This "loser's mentality" is entirely the fault of coaches, and precisely the head man. Mike Riley can't say things like, "The game against TCU will show us what kind of team we have" or something to that effect. He constantly talks in this manner, and it is weak, passive, and has connotations that it is okay to fail. Riley needs to set the highest realistic goal, and he needs to do it publicly so the pressure is square on the team from day one. And most importantly he needs to demand it, not hope for it. The setting of expectations and their subsequent achievement is one of two reasons (the other being creativity) Chip Kelly is twice the coach Mike Riley is. And I said twice the coach, not twice the guy.

Until all three of these things change, I can't take the Beavers seriously in any early season game. Keep an open ear to Riley's quotes and handling of the roster this fall. He does the "aw shucks/loser mentality" thing a lot, and it's time people stop lionizing the guy just because he is nice and instead start calling him out.

With one month until kickoff and only a few days until camp, it's a good time to set expectations for each squad.

Quarterbacks:

Clearly Katz is next in line for the job. Arriving on campus early and getting the extra seasoning (coupled with his solid performance) locked him in. I'm comfortable with Vaz as a backup. Lomax is interesting. The only news you ever hear about the guy is how well he's performing. People who judge QBs on the eye test always say that he must add weight. Well, if the line does their job, not really. Lomax is someone I think we'll enjoy watching by his senior season. Consistent, heady play trumps athleticism.

Grades:

Starter: B

Depth: B-

Running Backs:

The backup RB situation is uncomfortable. Neither McCants nor Stevenson strike me as guys who can step in and keep the offense churning. Both have shown glimpses of decent play in non-pressure situations, but pretend Quiz goes down game 1. Can these guys carry the Beavs through a season? No.

Grades:

Starter: A+

Depth: C

Wide Receivers

Like most pundits, I like this bunch.
The top four are, in order: Rodgers, Wheaton, Nichols, and Bishop. I'm curious to see what Kevan Walker can do. Munoz appears to be a good possession receiver in the making but probably won't see the field until next year when Nichols graduates. Mitch Singler is a walk-on to keep an eye on.

Grades:

Starters: A

Depth: B
 

Tight Ends

Halahuni is a prize down the seam who will make life easy for the WRs and RBs. This is a luxury the team has lacked since Newton graduated. Jonathan Reese red-shirted last year, so if Halahuni goes down I imagine he'd step in as the pass-catching TE/H-Back. The other guys are solid blockers.

Grades:

Starter: B+

Depth: B-

Offensive Line

This is where I expect the most shifting during fall camp. Most media reports list Philipp, Johnson, Linnenkohl, Ellis, and Remmers as the starters. Phillip and Linnenkohl are future pros. The other three guys are walk-ons. It's a top-heavy line. Johnson and Remmers had nightmare series and games last season, the worst of which cost the Beavers a victory versus Arizona. I actually like Ellis better than both of them. Watch for Grant Enger. He is not even being mentioned anywhere at this point, but I expect him to be a surprise, much like Linnenkohl came on at this point in his career a few years back. Remmers and Johnson are weak links, and if someone plays well enough to surpass either the line will be better for it. The three players poised to make a push are Ryan Pohl, Grant  Enger, and Josh Andrews.

Grades:

Starters: B+

Depth: C+

Special Teams

Johnny Hekker drags this unit down quite a bit, and I still have no idea which field goals Kahut is going to make or miss. Additionally, Justin cannot sniff a touch back. Good coaching will mask some problems but not all. Tackling (with the plethora of safeties on the roster) and the return game should be excellent.

Starters: B

Depth: C

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's interesting, because when thinking about the upcoming season I figured offensive firepower would be a given, but when I objectively grade out the units I realize that might not be the case. Of course there's a synergy in football, and an A+ RB could boost the on-paper-value of a B+ line. That's what great players do. It's clear to me, more than ever, that Quiz needs to put this team on his back the first four weeks while the greenhorns acclimate.

A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -Plato

And so here we are, late July, 2010, on the verge of a new epoch in college football: the era of "TV markets", stadium attendance, and recruiting violations. And the questions must be asked: who is to blame and who wins and who loses?

Many in PAC-10 land are embracing Larry Scott as a boy wonder. A marketing genius from Harvard who has come west to save the pariah conference from…gasp…irrelevance. As if the conference would ever be irrelevant to an Oregon State alum, or a Stanford grad, or a Condom driving daddy's Hummer to a Lindsay Lohan intervention. In other words, to the people who matter (i.e. actual fans of the conference) it is and always will be relevant. The story should end there. But it doesn't.

In humanity's perpetual desire to expand until we explode, Scott is pushing sacred boundaries in the name of good capitalism. "But each school will receive x-million more!" a happy Beaver cries. "Larry Scott has saved Washington State!" dreams a Cougar on his Palouse farm. "Eureka!" shrikes a Ute, so loud Archimedies furrows his brow before croaking a second time. In their new-found worship of the money god, what fans fail to ponder is the cost.

When I was studying at OSU, we learned of something called "existence value" of open spaces. In short, it was the value gained by, let's call him "human being xyz", in simply knowing something exists. For example, I may never go to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but the pleasure gained in my knowing it is there (and I could go) is enough to justify preserving its purity.

I know I can't be the only person who, despite the millions of dollars gained, feels something more valuable has been lost. Larry Scott has puddled with a prideful conference's history, rivalries, and essence. Larry Scott has chipped away yet another piece of my youth, innocence, and ideals. What is the tipping point where the product is so sterile and contrived that I cannot watch at all? How many years off is it? And all for what? Ego? Larry Scott pasted his face on the new PAC-10 website. Larry Scott got his name out there. "He's doing what he was hired to do", some will argue. Sure. And that goes back to my original question: who is to blame? Fans cried for Tom Hansen's head. Now we have Larry Scott's face…everywhere…and Larry Scott's hands…meddling in…everything. Might we not look back, as people often do, and regret what we wished for? Utah and Colorado. Is that what we wanted? Much like Midas and gold, everything smart, middle-aged, white men touch turns to shit. They've now infected College Football in unprecedented numbers, and the outcome will be no different. How long before student athletes are paid salaries? You're already hearing rumblings, fellows.

And one final thought: where will all these executive decisions leave the Beavers? If you've been on this earth longer than fifteen years, you know executive decisions always favor the rich and oppress the poor. Right off the bat you can see the conference will have the same number of D1 recruits to select from, only split 12 ways. Just look to MLB pitching staffs to see the detrimental effects of watering down a product. The Beavers will not be able to compete in this conference. And don't think the conference is done at 12. Just like Karl Marx wrote, capitalism will thrive until there are no markets into which it can expand. I foresee a day, in the next fifteen years, when the Beavers seriously consider an invite to the Mountain West Conference. Due to the academic reputation of the PAC-10 and OSU's priority on research, they'd never leave (though it would be a wise football move). Which answers my final question: who are the losers? The losers, of course, are the Cougars and the Beavers. In other words, when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Cheers to a job…done, Larry Scott.