Home Blog Page 373

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.

USC Ruling & Pac-10 Expansion

By
angry
-
85

USC will be hit with a “Failure to Monitor” penalty. The fact that agents (rather than boosters) provided gifts and money is going to be the difference. My feeling is the NCAA had their decision back in February, but likely felt they didn’t have enough evidence to go with the harsher “Lack of institutional control” penalty, so they figured they’d make USC sweat and receive negative media attention as additional punishment.

The negative publicity hasn’t seemed to hurt recruiting this year. Though, I’d be surprised if there isn’t a wrist slap on scholarship numbers–expect a small reduction.

Are these penalties fair? No. I’m of the opinion that USC should get the SMU death sentence, but hey, I am harsh. Sanctions will probably wind up being a milder form of what happened in Alabama. An admonition if you will. Keep in mind that barring USC from post season play hurts the Beavers. Conference revenue is shared. So, again, we have to deal with the question of what is ethical or fair versus what is good for us as Beaver fans. It’s difficult.

My problem with USC is that when you look at the product on the field, it wreaks of shadiness, from the coaches they hire to the players they produce (e.g. was anyone surprised to see Brian Cushing test positive? Did anyone ever wonder why he and his fellow LBs were twice as big and jacked as the opponents’ linebackers?). When you look at them, something just looks wrong. This is not grass fed cattle we’re dealing with, boys. That’s the best way to put it. The NCAA has a golden opportunity to put an end to that and level the playing field. Think of the John Robinson (II) era, when USC was good but not a machine. That is normal. What we see now is abnormal. Something is amiss.

As far as PAC-10 expansion, I am growing a bit tired of it, but it looks like the chips will fall into place within the next week. I expect the PAC-16, and this is why: If Nebraska announces an intent to move to the Big-10, Missouri will then follow so as not to be left out. That signals the end of the Big-12. It also puts the Big-10 at 13 teams, which means they will pluck 2 teams from the Big East, likely Pitt and Syracuse, and force Notre Dame’s hand (note: the Big East is Notre Dame’s conference for every sport but football). Notre Dame wants to remain independent so as to manipulate their schedule and hoard revenue, so they will not be proactive and make a jump to the Big-10. If they did this, the Big-10 would be content and everything would remain status quo. However, they won’t, because they could always rejoin the league later as the 16th team. Therefore, despite what the Irish want you to believe, everything revolves around Nebraska, and since they loathe Texas’s influence over the Big-12, the Cornhuskers likely bolt for the Big-10. Expect the PAC-10 to vulture the tasty scraps.

While I dislike the likely scenario for competitive purposes (kiss goodbye realistic hope of a BCS bowl game), it would be nice to have an operating budget, facility upgrades, etc.  Essentially what you wind up with is a de facto playoff system via the “super conference’s” championship game winner moving on to the title game. Could little Oregon State compete in such a scenario? I’ll leave that answer up to you guys.

Pat Casey Ends Beavers Season

By
angry
-
57

The job of a manager is to put players in a position where they are most likely to succeed. Tyler Waldron was not the most likely to succeed in today’s environment. The guy had a marred history as a starter, and was shaky at best as a reliever. That was a piss-poor decision by the coaches.

Boyd was the choice. He was the Beavers best pitcher this year. It seems odd to say that, but he was the one guy who consistently executed his pitches in the clutch while also grasping the mental component of the game. A crafty and heady pitcher, to say the least. That the coaches did not pitch him today is a let down to the team, fans, and conference as a whole. Had Boyd started I think the Beavers would be playing the night cap right now for a chance at redemption. Instead, they are on a plane over the Midwest. That idiomatic phrase about it taking a few bad apples to ruin a good thing…we saw it play out today, and Pat Casey has to be number one on the blame list.

His post game comment:

“Tyler was absolutely the perfect match-up for eight right-handed hitters that struggle with breaking balls,” Casey said.

A. Clearly he wasn’t the perfect match up.
B. Clearly they don’t struggle with breaking balls…or…
C. Maybe the stats Pat based his decision on are skewed. Unless you watch FA every day there is no way to know the information necessary to make that call, thus:
D. You pitch your best pitcher, not your best match up.

A further comment by Casey:

“The thing that’s discouraging a little bit is, in my opinion, we’re a much better team than Florida Atlantic, and then we spot them eight runs. That part to me is extremely disappointing.”

Perhaps Pat is forgetting that the manager and coaches are part of a team as well, and Florida Atlantic’s staff outshone the Beaver’s. Also, the quote above is so lame and embarrassing from a sportsmanship perspective. It shows how egotistical and delusional this guy is. Maybe he suffers from Tony Larussa syndrome, playing the obscurity card and desperately hoping it works out so he looks like a genius. Sad.

1...372373374...401Page 373 of 401