Lalich–suspension/released from team. Correct move.

Olander–community service. Wrong move.

Riley keeps the clown on the roster because it’s a position of need. If Olander were a third string safety he’d be gone. Four offenses and not even a one game suspension? Are you kidding me?

As a fan I am thrilled. I want victories. Olander is a pretty good college DT at this point and a viable starter.

But, as a human being, I’m in awe. I’ve heard of “three strikes and you’re out”, but never “four strikes and you’re in…as our starting defensive tackle!” That seems like an idiotic idiom. Is that like how a double negative don’t mean nothing but a positive? The Beavers will pay for this somewhere down the line, either in Riley losing players’ respect or Olander striking again. Bank on it.

From Cliff Kirkpatrick:

Riley said due to his good behavior between the two incidents there was no reason to consider the first one in the punishment for this situation.

Oh really, Mike? What about Lalich? He was “good” for two years between the Virginia and Shasta incident. The logic used in doling out these penalties is inconsistent. Where is the media? Why aren’t they asking difficult questions? Why aren’t they pointing out the hypocrisy?

And Beaver fan: are you going to try to justify this by using the “degree” of the crime? I have a feeling that will be the retort. “But, Angry, theft isn’t as bad as a DUI!” Go ahead, I encourage you to try that argument on me.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Moving forward…

With Lalich out of the mix, the three best QBs now have opportunity. Notice I said QBs, not best arm, tallest, or strongest. Lalich is a “measurable” guy. He received 4-stars based on his look, not his ability to man the position. Jack Lomax and Cody Vaz are better actual quarterbacks. Our team upgraded by attrition today. This seems to be a common trend.

Here’s to hoping Vaz is allowed to compete in August. He’s a natural at the position–a decent arm, good accuracy, and feisty leadership. Katz is good, but the reports out of spring have me concerned he might suffer from Farve-itis.

Have you ever seen the show “Masterminds” on TruTV? It chronicles brilliant schemes that lined the pockets of the world’s most duplicitous criminals. The show is fascinating because of the internal conflict it creates in the viewer. On one hand, you know these men are criminals. Yet, the elegance and brilliance of their crimes forces you to respect them. It’s in this manner I respect Boise State. They play the game (i.e. system) brilliantly. They are truly masters of manipulation, and that is what is rewarded in modern college football. So, kudos, and I mean that. I wish the Beavers were so savvy.

That being said, I don’t think they’re a National Title team, and further, I think they’d be a middle of the PAC team were they in the conference. “Getting up” for one game a year is simply not the same as having to do it every week. Ted Miller wrote the following piece, and it infuriated me that someone as intelligent as Ted has fallen for the smoke & mirrors that is Boise State. The discussion follows:

Ted Miller:

First, it’s not Boise State’s fault they are in the WAC. I’m sure they’d join the Big 12 or Pac-10 if invited. Moreover, the Broncos are aggressive nonconference schedulers. This fall, they play Virginia Tech and Oregon State, a top-10 team and top-25 team, respectively, from BCS conferences.

Boise State deserves — and has earned — national respect, see a pair of Fiesta Bowl wins as well as a home-and-home sweep versus Oregon. If the Broncos go undefeated in 2010, at this point it seems to me they deserve a chance to play for the national title over a one-loss team from a BCS conference (though a qualifier on that is if both Virginia Tech and Oregon State go belly-up and lose a bunch of games).

Further, you could argue that Texas played a regular-season schedule in 2009 that is comparable to what Boise State faces in 2010. The Longhorns slate looked weak in the preseason and weaker as the season went on. And Florida played only one team that ended up ranked in the final top-25 — No. 17 LSU — during the regular season.

Moreover, I think it’s more equitable to, as you say, “ding” the “have” schools for avoiding competition than the “have not” programs. Those schools you mention have a choice, and sometimes they choose the cowardly path and play four nonconference patsies.

So, no, if USC, Texas, Ohio State, Florida or Miami played Boise’s schedule and went undefeated I would not necessarily put them in the national title game. But I might with Boise State.

Angry:

Ted,
You’re a smart guy, so I am really surprised you’re not seeing through the smoke and mirror show that is Boise State. Let’s dissect your argument.
1. Boise State plays a tough OOC schedule.
2002: Idaho, Arkansas (lost by 4 touchdowns), Wyoming, Utah State
2003: Idaho State, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon State (loss)
2004: Idaho, Oregon State, BYU
2005: Georgia (lost by 5 touchdowns), Oregon State (loss), Bowling Green
2006: Sacramento State, Oregon State, Wyoming.
2007: Weber State, Washington (lost by 10 to a 5-7 Huskie team), Wyoming, Southern Miss (that’s Southern Miss, not Ol’ Miss).
2008: Idaho State, Bowling Green, Oregon, Louisiana Tech
2009: Oregon, Miami (OH), Bowling Green, UC Davis, Tulsa

I have them at 5-5 in their “difficult” OOC PAC-10 and SEC games, having lost to some horrendous Pac-10 teams (2005 Beavers, 2007 Huskies) in that time period. I think you’re being confused by the smoke and mirrors of scheduling, the fact that they tend to win their “big games” on Thursday nights, the outcome vs Oregon the past two years, etc. You’re not looking at their entire body of work. Unless you think playing Idaho, Idaho State, Utah State, and Wyoming are difficult games. Maybe you do.

2. You frown upon the “have” schools playing patsies. Yet, your claim that Boise State deserves to play for the national title, by definition, makes them a “have” school. It is incongruent, Ted, and you know it, to award x and penalize y for the same behavior.

Part I

As an Oregon State fan, the read option has had me tugging my hair for some time. I have always figured the solution to stopping it would lie in the esoterics of x's and o's; that is, run-stopping defensive formations such as the 46 or 4-4. Then I had a eureka moment. So simple, so elegant, so obvious. Why hadn't I thought of it before?

First, let's understand what happens during a typical a read option. This video does an excellent job of demonstrating the simplicity of the play from the offensive perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDu-livhN-k

As you can see, the idea behind the read option is to create indecision for the defensive end (sometimes this can be the linebacker as well). The Oregon variation is to leave the DT unblocked. This is a good wrinkle since a DT is usually slow and therefore cannot recover from the smallest indecision. So the question that's eluded Beavers coaches and fans for years is "how do we stop it?" Mark Banker has been trying to answer that question for seven years.

In the remainder of this article, I postulate that the solution is based on a simple, yet profound paradigm shift that has little to do chalk board diagrams. The idea is based upon this one simple proposition: Reverse the defensive player's indecision onto the offensive player. This is done by:

1. The DE (or LB or DT) "bluffing" a quick initial step towards either the QB or RB, then bouncing the other direction once the QB reads the defensive player's initial (bluff) move.

2. Variation in the bluff. It doesn't matter if the DE bluffs to the QB or RB, so long as he changes his strategy often enough so as to not form a pattern. This is an idea I've known intuitively for some time, but it wasn't until about six months ago when I began reading about (applied mathematical) game theory that I learned of the name for it–"mixed strategy." The idea and use behind a mixed strategy is simple:

A player would only use a mixed strategy when s/he is indifferent between several pure strategies, and when keeping the opponent guessing is desirable – that is, when the opponent can benefit from knowing the next move.

There is an infamous study on soccer penalty kicks that describes the [intuition of this] phenomena beautifully:  http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/mike.shor/courses/game-theory/docs/lecture05/MixedSoccer.html In short, by using a mixed strategy you can create an endless loop of "what if's" on both sides.

For example, in the soccer example it would be something like this: "I will kick left. But what if the goalie is guessing I'm going to kick left? Then he will block my kick. Therefore, I will kick right! But what if he knows that I think he knows that I'm going to kick left and therefore adjust to the right? Then he will block my kick to the right. So I will kick left."…and so forth. You can see how this quickly becomes and infinite and complicated loop in thought, and that is the precise idea–to nullify and level the offensive advantage (i.e. taking advantage of the defense's "pure strategy") via creating equal indecision. —————————————————————————————————————————————-

Part II

The notes below are taken from an interesting paper I found online, written by Mike Bellotti himself at a Nike camp in 2008, on the advantages and disadvantages of a shotgun spread offense.

Spread Shotgun Advantages:

1. Force defense to defend the width & depth of the field

2. Create more 1-on-1 situations for more RAC (run-after-catch) opportunities

3. Can see the blitz coming or it must come from a distance

4. Easier to read coverage

5. QB separation from line of scrimmage

Disadvantages:

1. Lose lead back running game

2. QB's eyes must be on shotgun snap, affects ability to read coverage

3. Defense can always outnumber – need options, hots, sight reads in the offense

4. QB must be a viable run threat

Some astute ideas here. While interesting, I see no purpose in focusing on the advantages on this list. The disadvantages offer great insight into how to further stop the read option. For example, if the QB must focus on the snap, an audible late in the snap count would likely work wonders. It's interesting to note that the defense can always outnumber, which is why Oregon loves to have a mobile QB and even that playing field. ———————————————————————————————————————————————– Conclusion The combination of reversing confusion onto the offense with defensive bluffs and late audibles should stop the read option. If the defensive players' commitment is a bluff, the quarterback has an unreliable "read" and therefore the pre-snap becomes an infinite guessing game that an offense would likely not want to play, and the post-snap would be bedlam. I'd love to find some of the Boise State film and see if this is precisely how they shut down Oregon.