Home Blog Page 365

2010 Beaver Academic Casualities?

By
angry
-
189

The Bridge Program begins next week. I went through the directory to see who isn't yet enrolled. It's a long list, one that includes 5 of the best prospects from the 2010 class.

1. Shaydon Akuna

2. Thomas Molesi

3. Fred Thompson

4. Scott Crichton

5. DJ Welch

6. Mana Tuivailala

7. Malcolm Marable

8. Dominic Glover

I have it on good authority that Molesi and Tuivailala never make it to Corvallis. Akuna's odds are 50-50. Considering Akuna and Molesi were arguably the top 2 recruits last year, their inability to qualify could be devastating to the program. If all the players on the list above fail to quality (which won't happen), that would be a class of 8 recruits. To take some chances makes sense, but to take this many chances when there were only 17 scholarships available is football suicide. In Riley you trust? Cross your fingers, Beavlettes.

Recruiting News (or Lack There of)

By
angry
-
129

1. The Beavers don’t have a verbal and it’s nearly July. The Beavs do this every year, so it’s not too surprising, but what is shocking is that we’re not even hearing rumors of a possible commit. Usually there are rumblings. Just crickets this year.

2. The Beavs are looking at a kid named Burton DeKoning. His offers are Cal Poly, Nevada, and Utah State. Uh…

Not only that, but watch the 3rd play on this video:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5250561

Being too slow to run down the QB and then flailing on the ground.

Yep, that’s the job description for a Beaver linebacker.

Come on, Mike Riley, give me a break.

This is Kameron Krebs part 20.

Larry Scott: Egg on His Face?

By
angry
-
85

Note to Larry Scott: when you bluff Texas cattle wranglers you get them hotter than a nanny goat in a pepper patch, and they send you home in two shakes of a lamb’s tail.

Sorry, chap.

The good news is that the conference is better off without the Big-12 south. Did anyone else have the feeling it was a mismatch we were trying to force for the wrong reasons? I feel relief it’s over, and I’m content with the outcome, since I was only for expansion if Scott could land two specific teams.

Okay, so he landed one. Awkward, but not unworkable.

This is what Larry Scott should do:

1. Poll fans of the PAC-10. Ask what they want. I think the answer would be parity (i.e. fairness), revenue, round robin format (for recruiting purposes), rivalries, excitement (e.g. championship game anyone?), and academics.

2. Achieve all the above. How? Just say “no” to Utah. Go to the NCAA and say, “Listen, we have 11 teams and we’re capping it there. If we play a round robin and remove a creampuff from our schedule, change the bylaw and give us a championship game.”

This would give the fan everything they want.

For Oregon State, it would be especially good. 2/11 = 18% chance of reaching championship game. This gives the “have nots” (Oregon State, Washington State, AZ schools) better odds of something to play for. That is, there is at least an 18% of their last game of the season being meaningful. Once in the game, that is another story: the odds are the same as if there were no championship game–the aforementioned .18*.5 or 9% . The positive thing about a championship game, besides revenue, is it acts as a wild card, giving each team better odds of at least playing in a meaningful game. That is good for the league, even if it means the national embarrassment of an occasional 8-3 team beating a 10-1.

Larry Scott seems intent to etch his legacy in college football. He can still do that by being the first commissioner  to get an 11-team conference a championship game. By keeping rivalries and the round robin format intact while increasing revenue via the Denver TV market and a title game, Scott will appease Pac-10 fans while also making his mark in college football history.

Historical Analysis: Where Would Oregon State Rank Sans "The Streak"?

By
angry
-
10

Ah, the off-season. When I can indulge myself in mundane data and historical hypotheticals. Love it.

That Oregon State is just 33 games under .500 (497-530) in their history despite the infamous 28 year losing streak begs the question, to me at least: what if they were just…average…for those 28 years? Where would the Beavers rank in the annals of college football? Let’s go about answering that question, shall we.

The following table shows the number of wins between 1893 and 1971 (i.e. the first year of the streak).

W L
343 243
Avg/Season 4.6 3.2

These are the numbers for the 28 year losing streak.

W L
67 237
Avg/Season 2.4 8.5

And finally, the decade since the streak was broken:

W L
87 50
Avg/Season 7.9 4.6

The problem in averaging wins is that at the turn of the century, the Beavers were playing 3, 4, or 5 game “seasons”. Therefore, a ratio (winning percentage) makes the most sense for our exercise. Once found, the ratio can be expounded to determine expected wins during the 28 year losing streak.

This is relatively simple. Take the total games played between 1893 and 1971 (586) and divide it by wins (343). The ratio, therefore, is .585, or 58.5%. But what about the Beavers past decade? They, too, must be added since the idea is to find the Beaver’s winning percentage sans the 28 year losing streak. This is also simple. Take the total wins from 1999-2009 (87) and divide it into the total games played (137). The Beavers winning percentage the last ten years is .635, or 63.5%.

The final steps:

1. Sum total games (i.e. 586+137) = 723.

2. Sum total wins (i.e. 343+87) = 430

Divide: 430/723 = .5947. Rounded up, this is .595 or 59.5%.

This is the Beavers all-time winning percentage minus all games played from 1971-1998, the 28 year losing streak. During those 28 years, the Beavers played 304 total games (note: ties are not included in this analysis). If they had played to the .595 winning percentage as in the other 89 years of their existence…in other words, if they simply had “average seasons”, the Beavers would have won 181 games during the streak, giving them an all-time record of 611 wins and 415 loses.

That win total would place OSU 38th in career victories and 28th in winning percentage.

Revisionist history? No.

It’s more that two points need to be made:

1. The fan base has low expectations because they believe this is a historically losing program. The Beavers have a winning percentage of 59.5% sans “the streak”. Stop using the streak as both a crutch and benchmark for expectations.

2. When I see a fan write “To me, Oregon State is a program that’s been around 12 years” it again puts focus on the streak. Fans should research the causes of the streak–understand that it began because of racial concerns and continued because of apathetic leadership. Understand the history (Stiner, Prothro, even Andros) of your  program. Understand that by being critical and demanding more you won’t have to live through another streak.

Personally, I view those 28 years as an aberration. I have no choice when faced with 89 years of winning tradition.

Historical Analysis: PAC-10 v BIG XII

By
angry
-
54

Do not applaud me. It is not I who speaks to you, but history which speaks through my mouth. –Fustel de Coulanges

On that note, enjoy this collection of history.

The PAC-10, through 2010, versus the six poached BIG-12 schools:

Team Win Loss
Arizona 9 44
Arizona St. 6 2
Oregon 12 18
Oregon St. 4 6
Stanford 6 10
UCLA 10 10
USC 21 3
Washington 11 13
Washington St. 5 14
Total 84 120 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Team vs Opponents
Arizona 1-12(CO)1-1(Ok)3-3(OkSt)0-1(TX)0-1(A&M)4-26(TTech)
Arizona St. 2-0(CO)1-0(OK)2-1(OkSt)0-1(TX)1-0(TTech)
Oregon 1-4(TX)2-0(TTech)1-6(OK)1-0(OkState)7-8(CO)
Oregon St. 3-2(CO)1-1(OK)0-2(TX)0-1(TTech)
Stanford 3-3(CO)1-4(OK)2-2(TX)0-1(A&M)
UCLA 4-2(CO)1-3(OK)1-1(OkSt)2-2(TX)2-2(A&M)
USC 5-0(CO)6-2(OK)4-1(TX)3-0(A&M)3-0 (TTech)
Washington 5-5(CO)1-2(OK)1-1(OkSt)1-3(Tx)1-2(A&M)2-0(TTech)
Washington St. 2-4(CO)0-3(OK)2-1(OkSt)1-2(TX)0-2(TTech)0-2(A&M)

————————————————————–

If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development. –Aristotle

Heeding Aristotle’s advice, if we are to understand the PAC-10 by observing it’s beginning and development, we come to the conclusion that, from a competitive standpoint, the future of the league appears grim. Only USC and ASU have a winning record versus the six teams joining the conference, with the eight remaining teams holding a 57-115 record all-time. That is a winning percentage of 33%. Arizona, with a combined 9-44 career record versus the six aforementioned foes, looks to be in gravest danger. Texas Tech and Colorado have absolutely owned them, going 38-5 versus the Wildcats.

What history tells me is that the founding members of this conference better adjust their game and play Southern/Midwest style football if they want to compete. It’s a different brand of football. One that is more effective than the finesse/speed game played by the current PAC-10. Beaver fans: the days of walk-ons starting on your offensive line are numbered. In 2012 they will be over (at least if you want to compete versus the Eastern division). You simply cannot bring that line to play Texas or Oklahoma. There is a reason I have been hyper-critical, and it is going to become even more evident in the coming years. Enjoy the waning moments of this epoch while they’re still upon you. At the same time, get on my back and demand more, because we’re going to need it.

1...364365366...393Page 365 of 393