Tonight scout.com published an article saying Bob D made the right choice by not putting the homecoming game on TV. The article states that Bob did this with the fans’ best interest in mind. Call me cynical, but given that our AD called these same fans out for not showing up at home games just one week prior, and we have had 26 straight games on TV, I have a hard time accepting that this decision was made with the fan’s best interest in mind. Bob wants a sellout, and he thinks between the ticket prices, concessions, and parking, he’ll make more money getting fringe fans (i.e. those fans who will only go to a game if it’s not on TV) into the stadium. The decision is also a statement aimed at the fans who were standing outside Reser staring at the Dam Cam. Cynical? Maybe. But…

To answer the question of motivation we need not look further than the money trail. The remaining tickets are priced at $65. Assume the game gathers an average crowd for this year, which is about 41,000. Well, Reser can seat 45,500 or so. That leaves 4,500 seats @ $65 or $292,500. Coincidence that the TV contract was for approximately $300,000? Factor in parking and concessions and it becomes clear this is a financial decision wrapped in fan’s clothing. I’d have a lot more respect for Bob D if he came out and said he can do better selling out the game and not putting it on TV. But to say this is about family and kids and Halloween is simply lame. The guy has been a great athletic director, and for the most part a straight shooter, but it’s clear he’s frustrated with Beaver fans and sticking it to them here. The downside is that fans like myself, who can’t get to Reser (i.e. live in California), are the ones who suffer, while the dolts who tailgated outside the stadium and caused this problem can either buy a ticket and watch the game in person or tailgate the parking lot yet again and watch the scoreboard.

Just a really bad situation between the AD and fans the past few weeks, and this latest decision seems more like a culmination of that frustration rather than a coincidence, or, as spun by Scout, a nicety on the part of Bob D. Maybe I’m missing something here in the finances and numbers, and if that’s the case, by all means point out my error because I’d like to believe the published story. I just don’t.

After watching the USC/Notre Dame game, I put the Beavers chances of victory at sub 1%. I just felt the game would be a sure loss and anything to the contrary a sure miracle. Over the past few days I’ve read a lot of fan feedback, both on this blog and other forums in Beaverland, yet none of them quite convinced me that we have a shot in the game. Mainly because I believe at this level of competition a great part of the game is mental, and I think the Beavs go into that stadium down in LA knowing the history (21 straight losses@USC) and with a roster loaded with USC rejects. The latter point can’t be underestimated. Lance Mitchell, Sean Canfield, Ryan McCants, et al.–all LA area guys who were overlooked by USC and had to “settle” for the Beavers. This isn’t a slight at the aforementioned players as most PAC-10 rosters are riddled with USC rejects, but I think it’s something that stays in the back of these players’ minds for a long time. Considering the Trojans are the pinnacle of west coast football, the thought that “I was not good enough to earn a USC scholarship” must be on the mind of any opponent playing at USC and one that must be overcome.

So why do I now give the Beavers a 22% chance of winning this game? Well, a little statistical analysis, first of all, but mainly because I think the Beavers have a psychological advantage in two areas, and these advantages are so strong that they trump (a) who the Trojans are and (b) who the Beavers are not.

1. A national ranking. You can make the argument that the Beavs had a chance to do this very thing versus Cincinnati and showed little mettle. Touche. But I think the benching of #28, familiarity with the opponent, a pro-style offense in USC, and general team improvement make this opportunity more palpable. I just see the mindset of the Beavers being one of desperation and ambition mixed with a quiet confidence. And the Trojans mindset right now is one of trying to psych themselves up with a “revenge” angle that lacks conviction while feeling the pressure to maintain their ranking. And lastly, while you’d never hear a Trojan admit it, after the events of the past three years there has to be a quiet, unspoken fear of the looming elephant in the room.

2. A big game by Quiz equals a legitimate Heisman run. The significance of such a (potential) run cannot be understated. It’s a cause the entire OL can get behind. It’s a cause that can make the OL give extra effort, make the extra block, and drive just a little harder off the line. Maybe the WRs and TE block a little harder, too. This is huge because the glaring mismatch on Saturday is going to be the Beaver OL versus the Trojan DL. Anything that can bridge the gap is worth noting, and personally I believe that having a potential Heisman contender in waiting does more than bridge the gap.

Do either of these two points come to fruition and have any effect on Saturday’s game? Clearly I don’t know. But I at least have good reason now to believe that the Beavers will be as jacked as possible for the occasion, have tangible motivation to put forth their best effort, and possibly even win–a feat that appeared to have lottery odds earlier this week.

On a final note, this line by Gregg Peat sums it up nicely.

“It’s an opportunity for them to get back at us, and it’s an opportunity for us to get back on the map, too,” OSU guard Gregg Peat said. “We’re just as fired up as they are.”

Watching this USC game, I don’t see how we’re not 4-3 (2-2) at this time next week. I was really interested to see how Notre Dame matched up against USC because their team is very similar to OSU in several key facets:

1. No pass rush–Barkley has looked good, mainly because ND can’t get near him. He has Tom Brady or Manning-like protection. ND has good athletes, at least in terms of recruits, on their DL…so if they can’t disrupt the QB I don’t see how our line sniffs pressure. What do we have, 4 sacks all season?

2. Bad secondary–ND secondary isn’t very good. Neither is ours. Pretty much the same talent level on both squads, and Damian Williams has torched these guys. The only Beaver capable of slowing him down is Hardin due to his size, speed, and physical stature, but our coaches refuse to play Hardin because he’s too shy/quiet in practice. Good stuff.

3. Good offense–ND has a good offense. They’re 35th in total offense and OSU is 39th. They do it more with the pass while the Beavers rely on the run and screen game. It seems you can move the ball on USC this year, but they’re getting good pressure on Claussen and tighten up at key moments. Canfield is nowhere near the QB Claussen is; therefore, if Sean receives similar pressure you can expect a reversion to the turnover machine of 2007. What Quiz did to them last year is moot due to all the changes on both teams’ lines.

I actually think ND is slightly better than we are because they can slow the run. For as long as I can remember we’ve had major issues–more so than most schools–with sub 4.40 running backs. McKnight, Best, Bush, Stewart, et al all seem to have field days versus the Beavs, hitting the edge early and often. Actually, when was the last time the Beavs bottled up a featured RB, sub 4.40 or not, for less than 50 yards against a team that runs a pro-style offense? I can’t think of one. Couple this with the lack of pass rush and the fact we don’t put our best players on the field (*cough* Hardin, *cough* bench Frahm, etc), and I forsee a long day of Tanqueray washing into the belly of Angry.