The Future of OSU Football
by beavsfan10 on Jan 8, 2009 5:10 PM PST
42 comments
Since the beginning of the decade we have seen several of Oregon State's athletic teams go from being a lower to middle of the pack Pac-10 team to competing at the highest level not only in the Pac-10, but in the entire country. While football has no doubt had unprecedented success in the last 7 or 8 years, my question for the rest of Beaver nation is what do the Beavs need to do to reach that next level? The next level of consistently winning 10-12 games a year, finishing in the top 15 or top 10, playing in BCS games, and having a realistic chance every year to win the Pac-10. Do you think we need better coaches? Better athletes? Better facilities? Weaker non-conference schedule? Should we expand Reser again? Or simply keep doing what we are doing and things will happen in time? This post is certainly open to anyone and I am very interested to hear what the rest of Beaver fans out there think we can/should do to reach that next level. I am personally very excited about all of Oregon State athletics and I think that in 3-5 years we have a realistic chance of being very, very good in football, men's basketball, and baseball. Please leave your thoughts....
GO BEAVS!!!
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Building the Dam staff. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon State fans.
0 recs |
42 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I know this isn't really an answer to your main questions
But what I’m looking to is the next two years (maybe three but next two for sure) and how those pan out. I personally feel that the last couple years have got us to the edge of moving on, now the question for me is can the program do it? I then think if in two/three years we are asking the same basic questions you posed above instead of “can we continue to do this and win 10 to 12 games a year” then we should come back to possible concerns you brought up here:
Do you think we need better coaches? Better athletes? Better facilities? Weaker non-conference schedule? Should we expand Reser again?
I guess in short what I’m feeling and thinking right now is that the program is right on the edge and will it push itself it over with Riley and the staff or will it back away? For the informal record (!) I am personally feeling very good about it all and thinking (hoping) that Riley is ready to push it over.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 8, 2009 5:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
My opinion is doing a better job of marketing the Beaver brand of athletics. You have all the components of creating a marketing manager’s dream in Corvallis. Blue collar team, stars in the Rogers Brothers, a homegrown coach dedicated to making his hometown team the best. I think the Beaver program hasn’t taken the next step in making itself a national brand. With all of the above going on in Corvallis right now, the time is right to capitalize on the success that Oregon State has really had over the last decade.
I know it is hearsay to put anything positive about Oregon on here, but the marketing program at Oregon has done an amazing job at putting Oregon on the national map since the late 90’s. For some it will be hard, but I honestly think that if the Beavers spent more time building themselves as a brand as opposed to “we’re the team that hates the Ducks”, you will start to put yourselves in positions to get all of what you want. More exposure, more recruits, more home and homes (which are starting to come), it becomes a snowball nationally.
Watch Coach Robinson in Basketball over the next 2 years. The OS athletic department couldn’t have asked for anything better. With the recruiting class coming in and the exposure Coach Rob provides, there could be some heat on Beaver basketball nationally, especially if Obama gets on board. If football can somehow piggy back on that or carve out their own unique nitch, I think you start seeing the perks that come along with it
--Dominic
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
by dvieira on Jan 8, 2009 8:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ignoring the UO stuff thrown in!
Some good points here.
Although it is a bit of double-edged sword for OSU and that yes marketing would help A LOT, I mean I read Miller’s piece about the Pac-10 in 09 over at ESPN and he was mentioning Sanchez, Best, and even Masoli (emphasizes your point I think) as possible Heisman candidates in 2009 and not one mention of Quizz! But on the other side of things OSU has built up this reputation of being the underdog and wanting to fly under the radar a bit, Riley seems to like that take you down when everyone lest expects it attitude in his teams, so then if you start to get all “flashy” front page material it goes against a lot of what got us to the point where we at.
I don’t know your points do make me think, but not sure how that would work for the program. I like the basketball example though for yes look at the recruits Robinson is bringing in!
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 8, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
as a duck fan, I was shocked that Masoli was in the list over Quizz. If Oregon somehow makes it through the first 4 games alive, it just very well may lie on that kids shoulders
--Dominic
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
by dvieira on Jan 9, 2009 12:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But one thing it shows is that the UO has put itself on the press radar screen (and Ted Miller is a bit partial IMO but that’s another story!), I mean I read somewhere else that Masoli could be the “second coming of Dennis Dixon” and that’s part of not only a good program creating star QBs but also a program that has that marketed an identity of producing high quality players (especially at QB think back to Joey and either as far back as Fouts). It all works together you are correct.
But even though it is hard for people to “identify” anything with OSU right now (think back on the crew doing the Sun Bowl this year, and how Pitt was so much more easily focused on for them in terms of history and team identity!) it still seems to play into our hands a lot of the time. So, I don’t know how it would work for the OSU program if it became more high profile. As firewood79 also puts it the university and town of Corvallis really don’t have the resources to become a high profile sports school. And in a way nor should they for there are more important things to spend the money on (and yes do realize I love OSU sports and love to sit in those new Reser seats! but still more important things in life).
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 8:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Money
Money is the key factor in consistent top notch programs. We have nice facilities, but where do they rank in the pac 10? Maybe seventh? We’re a small school, we don’t have huge donors. Its more realistic to say we will compete for a Pac 10 championship and BCS bowl every 3 or 4 years. I think Riley is the perfect coach for OSU because he is great evaluator of talent and understands we can’t compete with the likes of USC for recruits. We will always rank in the bottom half of the PAC 10 for recruiting. We wont have a 70,000 seat stadium and Corvallis isn’t a glamorous city. Im not bashing on the program. These are the reasons I love OSU. We compete on a higher level than we should and I think that is what is exciting.
by firewood79 on Jan 8, 2009 10:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oregon State's football brand, to go national, NEEDS TO WIN NATIONALLY FIRST
The Oregon offense strikes fear into posters on Big-10 message boards, but Oregon State did not light the world on fire after a 14-45 ass-whooping in Happy Valley. And even before the 2008 Civil War, when Oregon State was on the cusp of an incredibly improbable trip to Pasadena for a second round of JoePa, every bowl projection I looked at had USC in the Rose Bowl.
Right now, despite recent upsets of the West Coast Leviathan, Oregon State has no credibility nationally because Mike Riley cannot beat anybody outside of conference play or bowl games. Oregon’s defeat of Top 5 Michigan in 2003, and then the epic 2007 pasting in Ann Arbor, gave Oregon a ton of press back East. Recruits at that game who were approached by reporters spoke in awe of what they had just seen. Moreover, Oregon has the stadium setup to attract matchups with big-time BCS powers, with a date with Georgia on the schedule in a couple of years.
Before any of this can happen for Oregon State, understand something: Oregon State’s fanatical fanbase (excuse me, lackthereof) is hobbling the potential of the football program. Earlier in 2008 when Oregon State took down Troy, on a national ESPN2 broadcast, Reser Stadium was clearly several thousand seats short of a sell-out. I was guffawed that a 45,000-capacity stadium CANNOT SELL OUT FOR A GAME VERSUS #1. Oregon by contrast has sold out its place with ~60,000 in attendance for every home game for almost a decade. The native fan base for Oregon is much, much larger, and more intense, than it is for the Beavers.
With the fanatical fan base present, demands are made. Oregon fans want awesome facilities, that they get. Oregon fans want big OOC games, that they get. They want big bowl games – that they get (and I am not talking about shitty 3-0 Sun Bowls).
The decision for Oregon State to schedule the 2008 trip to Happy Valley, that I KNEW would be impossible for them to win, screamed of desperation in my opinion. Oregon had just annihilated Michigan in a landmark, historic win. Oregon State needed to get its brand out on the East Coast to compensate for that victory and show the nation that another BCS school existed in Oregon that could compete with Big-10 powerhouses.
So much for that ploy. Why does Oregon State play these kinds of games? Schedule a one-and-done to get a check plus an ugly “L” for both themselves and the PAC-10?
Look, Oregon State has played more FCS teams that any other program in the PAC-10 in recent years. This is not done out of cowardice, but the football program is not very profitable, nor is as popular as its bigger brother in Eugene. Oregon State does not have the fanbase that demands a half-decent stadium that can accomodate visits from out-of-conference BCS powers (60,000)+. Big-time programs have big-time arenas to attract other BCS programs for matchups. Oregon State is not in a special situation like Utah or Boise where coaching is enough to crack the BCS and get that kind of opportunity.
The problem I see with Oregon State is that other than the fact that the fanbase is simply not there to support a big-time college football program, I think Mike Riley has taken Oregon State as far as it can go. He has yet to have a season that has fewer than 4 losses, a final ranking higher than #23 (2006), and a bowl game beyond El Paso. If Oregon State is going to become a national brand, it’s going to have to do it the hard way by winning some notable OOC games. Winning Sun Bowls is not going to get Oregon State anywhere. The Beavers have to get themselves in position to beat highly-ranked OOC teams, whether early in the season or in a big bowl game.
by Strykur on Jan 8, 2009 10:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
In awe
I am completely baffled by this post. You are saying a win over a Michigan team who had lost to Appalachian State just a wk or so earlier was a big win? I believe Oregon State has more bowl wins the past few years than Oregon and more top-25 finishes. Also, I’m pretty sure that only USC has more Pac-10 wins that OSU the last couple of seasons. Oregon State has also beaten Oregon 2 out of the last 3 years (yes I know they got pasted this year in Reser). And I’m sorry but Oregon does not play that big of an OOC schedule. You lost to Boise State this year in Autzen and will get blasted by UGA in a couple seasons (trust me on that. I am currently a UGA student). And you guys have great facilities cause you guys have a guy by the name of Phil Knight who graduated from your school and donates tons of money. Now please don’t get me wrong, I respect Oregon’s program and think they are a very good program and one that OSU has to consistently beat if they want to win the Pac-10. But that post was absolutely ridiculous.
by beavsfan10 on Jan 8, 2009 11:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agree in part to what you said. As a group, we duck fans need to get over the “non sellout” of the USC game. Any practical person with half a brain can understand why that game wasn’t sold out. Economy, Thursday night game, thoughts of getting paying $75 admission. It doesn’t matter. If you can’t see that and insist on ragging on Beavs fans because of that, you just aren’t living in the real world of families, money, lost jobs, long car rides from fan hubs, etc.
All that aside, I think my argument about marketing of the Beavs program rings true through out your post Beavsfan10. The Beavs have everything you said, more bowl wins, 2-3 victories over Oregon the last 3 years, and Oregon does have important donors. Those numbers, as true as they may be, don’t change the fact of perception of the Beavs program and why Oregon has more national pub and that is a direct result of the “underdog, quietly going about our business, giant killer” mentality that Oregon State carries. One of the big criticisms of Oregon is that we try to be bigger than our britches so to speak. There is a reason for trying to do that. There has been a strong attempt to raise the specter of our program. Sometimes it has worked, sometimes it hasn’t.
The reason why Oregon State can’t capitalize on all the things that you mention, in my opinion, is that Oregon State doesn’t have that signature win out of conference. Trust me, USC this year went a LONG way. Even if you lost that game, think about what a win against Penn State gives you. It gives you instant credibility nationally. Like it or not, Oregon has those wins on its resume (one of them tainted by a bad replay call of course). Oregon State needs those on its resume. Beating Pitt in a border-line unwatchable game in the Sun Bowl 3-0 just doesn’t do it for you. Oregon beating Oklahoma State, a team from the Big-12 (a conference up until that point was thought to be good and not overrated), is another signature win on the belt for Oregon. Oregon State needs to start touting its horn about these wins, bowl games and generating the hype in their stars. Oregon has made national stars out of their players for the last decade. The Beavs have that in the Rogers Brothers. They need to take advantage of it and ride it to bigger things.
To address your statement alluding to Michigan not being a big win, you are wrong. Just because Michigan lost to Appalachian State the week before, doesn’t mean the win didn’t have a national impact. In retrospect, was Michigan good in 2007? They actually ended up having a good season beating Florida in the gator bowl if I remember right. The win was important because A) Michigan was supposed to be PISSED after getting beat by App State B) the Oregon game was at the Big House C) there was no way Michigan was going to lose 2 weeks in a row to start the season and D) like it or not, they are Michigan, a huge name on the national scene. It was one of the biggest wins in the history of Oregon athletics, not just in recognition, but in score. 39-7 (and given a turnover and a goal line stand by Michigan, it could have been 51-7).
--Dominic
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
by dvieira on Jan 8, 2009 11:37 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The reason why Oregon State can’t capitalize on all the things that you mention, in my opinion, is that Oregon State doesn’t have that signature win out of conference. Trust me, USC this year went a LONG way. Even if you lost that game, think about what a win against Penn State gives you. It gives you instant credibility nationally. Like it or not, Oregon has those wins on its resume (one of them tainted by a bad replay call of course). Oregon State needs those on its resume. Beating Pitt in a border-line unwatchable game in the Sun Bowl 3-0 just doesn’t do it for you.
True to a point, but at the same time to come back to your main point about marketing what you are talking about with the signature win really comes down to the players and coaches performance and when all is said and done money, marketing, facilities, sell out games, etc., etc., etc. are part of the picture sure, BUT a smaller part than the main one and that is going out and winning games. And we have to admit that is hit and miss much of the time (as Jake would say “That’s why we play the game.”). Example: UO and Boise State this year. Might have been a UO win if you actually started a certain QB, but he was a bit untested and as such got into the game late. Think about how a W there would have panned out for the rest of the season? Momentum, feeling better about the stability at the QB position, and having Masoli get more game time all would have gone a long way to establishing yourselves and the season. But at the same time it would not have really been a “signature” win for the Ducks were suppose to win it, but again the game would have been as important as the “signature” ones you mentioned above. BUT who did it establish? BSU of course, which in way I guess shows that we both are on to something.
I think your other example below of scheduling the Penn State game as a later in the season game is another interesting component to all of this!
Just what I’m saying is that even with all the marketing and money you pour into a program it really comes down to skill matched up with heart along with coaching and with a little bit of luck thrown in to win the games. Sounds a bit old-fashioned I know and I don’t get me wrong for I do recognize the importance of the business of college football. In the end I think OSU football is starting to align a bit more of my old-fashioned formula and could be team to look out for, and thinking if so the business formula will start to add up too.
Remember awhile back when we all compared where the OSU and UO programs are at and where they came from over the last twenty to thirty years? Many thought that OSU is about where UO was 10 to 5 years ago and are fast improving (at a faster rate I personally think), so give us a little more time.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Many thought that OSU is about where UO was 10 to 5 years ago and are fast improving (at a faster rate I personally think), so give us a little more time.
I don’t agree with that entirely.
I think OSU has pretty much been on par with Oregon, save a season here and there both ways, for the last 20-or-so years.
Especially the last 10.
It's spelled ""S-H-U-Y-O-U-V-E-D-O-N-E-S-O-M-E-N-I-C-E-T-H-I-N-G-S-W-I-T-H-T-H-E-P-L-A-C-E"
by JShufelt on Jan 9, 2009 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm, maybe on par the last eight years (since 2000) = Yes agree, thinking about that again I think you are correct, but see below.
I stand by my initial point though that UO under Rich Brooks went to the Rose Bowl and has a legs up on the two teams IMO, OSU has got here faster, SO what I was trying to say was UO got to the point OSU is at now sooner on the timeline. But yes I totally think we are on par with each other now for the last decade. Just disagree slightly about the last 20.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Timeline = UO got to the success point of being consistent (for the most part) earlier than OSU and as such has had more time to establish its identity as a Pac-10 contender on a constant basis.
Hope that makes a bit more sense, the initial post was a bit abstract I admit, I tried to get a lot said and didn’t want to go on too longggggggg!
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oregon's football program got going in the mid-90s
Oregon State didn’t get going until Erickson got here
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Jan 9, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just want to say that it’s freaking awesome that we are even having this discussion. It now feels like a race to see who can get into BCS bowls (or maybe further in the playoffs???) faster and more consistently. This is a good problem to have.
"When Bellotti attempted to shake the hand of Oklahoma State quarterback Zac Robinson after the game, Robinson offered his left hand. His right was swollen and battered from the Ducks' defense."
by MarineCorpsDuck on Jan 9, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except for getting those few postings that seem to be angry (extremely fearful) about OSU even being a program to start with, let alone rivaling UO’s success, I totally agree!
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say that Oregon football really got started in 88...
They started the season 6-1 with huge a huge win against Washington until Musgrave went down against ASU. They proceeded to lose 5 games in a row.
The Musgrave years really started it all.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Jan 9, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m exposing my naivety of UO football history here, but when was the Rose Bowl? 94 or 95?
If so that puts it about five to six years out from 88 and then you had the change over for coaches mid 90s, it all really gives the program a strong current foundation.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So yes, I wouldn’t put the two programs on par for the last 20 but last ten sure.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fact Check - defense from a Duck
Sorry I just have to make a few corrections in the post above
Moreover, Oregon has the stadium setup to attract matchups with big-time BCS powers, with a date with Georgia on the schedule in a couple of years.
Cincinatti was in the Orange Bowl this year and is coming to Reser in 09. They signed a home and home with the Beavs. That contract will be fulfilled next year
The native fan base for Oregon is much, much larger, and more intense, than it is for the Beavers.
You may have some argument about Oregon having a larger fan base but I don’t think you can argue it is more intense. I didn’t see too many people camping out for Civil War tickets from the Duck side of things the last two years…let alone for a week. Larger is debatable too. A lot of eastern Oregon is all Beavs country because Duck games aren’t shown around the state like the Beavs games are. Depending on who you believe, Portland is Beavs country too (although I think it is pretty close to the middle, a lot of Beavs fans say its all Ducks. ). Seeing the Oregon student section leave a game because it was raining a bit during the Cal game sticks with me to this day. I haven’t seen or heard of cases where a Beaver team was competitive in a game and the entire student section left because it was raining too much for them
Oregon fans want big OOC games, that they get. They want big bowl games – that they get (and I am not talking about shitty 3-0 Sun Bowls).
If you go back and look since 2003, Oregon State only has 1-2 more I-AA games played than Oregon. Utah State isn’t exactly on our “big game” list from this year and we just replaced Central Michigan with Portland State coming up. Also we have been in our share of sun bowls. uh, last year we were in the Sun Bowl and The Vegas Bowl (remember BYU?) before that. Don’t forget 2004 we didn’t even go to a bowl. It goes both ways.
Oregon had just annihilated Michigan in a landmark, historic win. Oregon State needed to get its brand out on the East Coast to compensate for that victory and show the nation that another BCS school existed in Oregon that could compete with Big-10 powerhouses.
Oregon State had scheduled Penn State long before that. It has been well documented that Riley was a huge Jo Pa fan. It may be true that the Beavs wanted to schedule some big name opponents but what is wrong with that? First your blast them for having a crappy OOC schedule, then you blast them for actually trying to do something about it? If that game happened in November, I think the game is a lot closer (but I might be in the minority)
Why does Oregon State play these kinds of games? Schedule a one-and-done to get a check plus an ugly "L" for both themselves and the PAC-10
again, you blast OSU for having an easy OOC schedule then you blast them again for scheduling games that were tough. People thought Oregon was going to get creamed by Michigan both times they played. Oregon pulled it out.
The Beavers have to get themselves in position to beat highly-ranked OOC teams, whether early in the season or in a big bowl game.
Can’t have it both ways. Either they schedule the games and run the risk of losing (just like any other team) or you play the easy OOC.
…but the football program is not very profitable…
it does pay for itself. This is a bad thing?
--Dominic
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
by dvieira on Jan 9, 2009 12:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thanks dvieira
The funny thing about that post (or whatever the hell it was) is that the central premise of OSU needs to win on the national stage has some truth to it that would get no arguments from Beaver fans (Louisville, Cincy, Penn State all on national TV). But then the post becomes this long contradictory and rambling piece of anger. Needs to calm down a bit, it’s only football.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 8:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"When Bellotti attempted to shake the hand of Oklahoma State quarterback Zac Robinson after the game, Robinson offered his left hand. His right was swollen and battered from the Ducks' defense."
by MarineCorpsDuck on Jan 9, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this
It's spelled "M-A-R-C-H-I-N-G-B-A-N-D."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by Takimoto on Jan 11, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dvieira thanks for the defense
The PSU game was scheduled right before the summer last year. We were a fill-in for I believe Arkansas State who pulled out of their contract with Penn State.
The football team actually made more revenue this year than UO’s did, if The Oregonian is to be believed.
Marketing is a huge deal, as UO has done a great job of marketing itself. Oregon State fans (myself included) despise Oregon for this reason: their fame and infamous “brand” is, what we feel, more smoke and mirrors than anything else (Joey Harrington poster in Time Square). However, Oregon State just absolutely does not have the money for that kind of marketing…yet.
What is looking up for Oregon State is that the students that are graduating now have been treated to some damn fine football the last couple of years. Next year’s graduating class (students, class of 2010), assuming OSU will have a winning season, will be the first class in Oregon State history to have had a winning season every year they were in school. This is significant. The current alumni who are donors didn’t have good football, and may be impartial to donating. The students graduating now will want to give back for their experiences. It’s just how it works. This will help significantly.
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Jan 9, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is huge!
Wow, didn’t think about this before and yes it is a really big deal and pretty neat (IMO):
Next year’s graduating class (students, class of 2010), assuming OSU will have a winning season, will be the first class in Oregon State history to have had a winning season every year they were in school. This is significant.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 9, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Started the run right
Oregon State started the building program right, recruiting better talent and winning more games. But I’d have to say that, like Utah was 10 years ago, you guys likely need slightly better investment in facilities and better branding as many have noted. Utah’s smack down of Pittsburgh, BSU beating the Okies, you guys need a couple more of that. 2008-2009 no one knew what to think, lose to PSU, beat USC, lose to Utah.
But, winning 8-9 games annually should increase your talent enough to win a few more. Also, I hear nothing but good things about your coaching staff.
I think the USC win did a lot for putting you guys in the minds of players and fans, but you need to follow that up. Lack of consistent wins OOC can kill you, as was noted by others. Utah has been lucky in winning more games than they lost to the PAC-10 and others recently. Consistency, efficiency in winning, that sells the program so that guys want to come. Media has been noticing you, Mandel of SI pushed you guys all year long.
I’d say from watching you all season you have the coach and core personnel, you’re a couple kids and a few wins from making a splash. Last year both OSU and Utah had adequate quarterbacks, good to great quarterbacks would have made them animals.
Seems you guys are deadly at home, is that accurate? Start winning in other locales. Wins on road makes people notice, gets the media in those cities involved because Corvallis and Salt Lake aren’t media Meccas, you have to win on the road.
Right now your team seems ot be complacent, happy to be better than previous OSU teams, need ot ingrain the killer instinct. That was what Meyer did—yook the same kids at Utah that McBride recruited and made them better, hungrier.
I’d say if they only win 7-9 games for a few more years you might back slide, that was what we did under McBride.
by MeanBobMean on Jan 28, 2009 6:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
being complacent
That’s an interesting point, but I think it is a bit more complex than just sitting on success. I think there is an element of player talent. Like you observed with the skill level of QBs one has a team can only go so far on the level of talent playing. And unfortunately not every team can get a Tebow back there throwing and running! But in the past we had two very good (albeit inconsistent) QBs in Moore and Anderson and some awesome RBs especially Jackson. But it never quite came all together for us and not sure it is totally due to be sitting back on being comfortable with just being better than the past OSU teams. I do agree there is probably an element of this being complacent, but timing of players being on and off at different stages of their playing careers, some really skilled players going to the NFL early, general overall level of skill that can only take you so far, and a big time coaching change midstream all have a lot to do with it.
I personally think that the attitude and drive the Rodgers’ brothers bring to the program combined with higher profile recruits (the type of players who expect to go on to bigger things like the NFL and want a team that will make them shine) could well give the team the killer instinct you talked about. I also think Riley downplays being “cocky” but I think he expects to get his teams to be on national stage very soon and more often, and yes his downplaying this all is a bit of a double edged sword with flying under the radar being the OSU way but then we don’t get the press and/or respect we deserve. As I mentioned above I think the next two to three years are going to tell us a lot about the Riley era. Which of the USC or the Penn State results will be the fluke?
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 28, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I will add
With a team like OSU who has had “lower” skilled players coming into the program and lack of depth that with a coach like Erickson and especially Riley you will get both some overachieving and also the coaches will tap into and make the most of the talent (DE and MR doing it in vastly different ways). BUT at the same times you will play teams with more depth and/or clicking on all cylinders that will make us look horrible. I also think this is one reason that we have problems early in the season, for the team doesn’t have that pure overall athleticism and overall depth to ride on when the team as a whole has not come together. You know as the season goes on OSU teams are great at coming together and the players really know how to play off each other’s strengths and cover for each other’s weaknesses (as well as the coaches, think about how different the season could have been if Quizz was the no question starter at Stanford?).
So I think that even more than complacent we have lacked consistency of depth. Building that depth will go a long long way for this program IMHO.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 28, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Penn State
That wa san aberration. For whatever reason Beavers simply did not show that night. Depth, depth is huge.
by MeanBobMean on Jan 28, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think so too, but one never knows for we had a couple other ugly games too
I would have loved to see a fully loaded and healthy OSU playing Penn State in the Rose Bowl (and in that other game). That would have told us much about the future of this program I think.
But alas…
Need to keep looking forward and can’t look back.
I will add with how things are/have been at OSU and Corvallis and now with the economy I don’t know if the facilities will ever reach the level of other programs. And again begs the question of if we had great facilities and a wonderful PR machine cranking behind the team would that then take away from the culture Riley wants to foster at OSU? I personally don’t know if I have an answer.
And thanks for the thoughts you posed, some very important and interesting questions!
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 28, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I always wonder that too
if we had great facilities and a wonderful PR machine cranking behind the team would that then take away from the culture Riley wants to foster at OSU?
Our facilities are just fine right now. They aren’t the best, no, but they sure as hell aren’t the worst. We probably never will be a Tier 1 football school, and that is just fine. Very few schools are, and they have been working towards that for decades now. 50 years down the road, who knows. But quite honestly, the state of Oregon has to take football more seriously before anyone else does. This is a basketball state, plain and simple
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Jan 28, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is really important
You raise a most excellent point:
What kind of school and program do you want to be. Do the fans “have to have” 10 wins annually? See, when Meyer took us undefeated, I did not care if we ever did it again because baby, we did it in my lifetime and that’s good enough for me. Beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl? I don’t believe it really happened and I was there. It was gravy, we can win 8 annually, sometimes 5-6 and maybe 10 again once or not, I don’t care.
Utah was a basketball school, the state was a Bball state, where did thes eguys come from (which, by the way, was asked of me by ’Bama fans, heh).
So, here’s the question: Would you accept a gentlemanly culture in football, a team that plays beyond its recruiting and means, regular 7-9 wins and the odd bad season or two, and one year undefeated maybe or do we sell our souls to the football culture in our nation to be a so called “elite” program?
Is it more meaningful if one yeara team like that goes undefeated than if you win 10-11 annualy? I think it is.
I live in Tallahassee, Florida. I frankly don’t care for the nastiness and whininess of elite sports fans. After Chris Rix was busted a few times for fraud in using a handicapped tag to park closer to classes I said “send him home.” FSU fans were stunned with my comments “He’sour best quarterback” they said (at church no less). When Warrick and Coles were busted in this town, and were clearly guilty, I said the same thing. Yet FSU fans were writing to the paper saying “Boycott Dillard’s if they press charges” because they needed their “star” receivers more than their virtue. So, who do we want to be as people is part of what we want from our college team.
You want to pay millions annually for a coach who yells and screams at his kids? Wold you hire Bobby Knight?
I very much think how we act as fans and perceive our teams’ successes and failures defines us as people, and we have ot live with ourselves after the Bowl season.
So, who are the Beaver Nation, and does the team reflect them? Seems to me in great measure they already have succeeded, good people, honest hard working, blue collar team.
Our coach, Whittingham, turned down money to live in a town he loves and be with kids he recruited and made promises to. That’s the program I want. I can live with a few losses if the integrity and humanity is there.
by MeanBobMean on Jan 29, 2009 8:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Call me naive
So, here’s the question: Would you accept a gentlemanly culture in football, a team that plays beyond its recruiting and means, regular 7-9 wins and the odd bad season or two, and one year undefeated maybe or do we sell our souls to the football culture in our nation to be a so called "elite" program?
But I’m not totally sure this is an either/or type of situation. I think that with the quiet progress and that the coaching staff is more active in recruiting than they let on that we are beginning to see the results of top notch recruiting. I think there is a chance to get to an elite level and keep the culture. And I think that as long as Riley is here there is a good chance the program will continue to improve and as fans start to get into that won’t settle for less than 10 wins it will feed off each other.
Is the only situation that could arise? Heck no, it could backfire or end up as one duck fan called some of their fanbase as that “pro franchise mentality.” I’m optimistic though, but wouldn’t be surprised if it went the other way too (if that strange either/or statement makes sense!).
I also am one of those people too that does sees this all as it is and college sports and we’ll have ups and downs, and this makes it fun, exciting, and frustrating all at the same time.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 29, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can have both however
The old Nebraska comes to mind. Granted, they had their fair share of criminals in the 90s (but let’s be honest, every team that was anything in the 90s had criminals.. I think we’ve moved away from that being the “norm” now). But more importantly, their fans were some of the best in the country. They would only root for Nebraska, never against the team (except for say, Colorado). I’m told from old Nebraskans how they were ashamed to win games 70-0 against teams like Iowa State and Kansas because it reflected poorly on them by running up the score, even though those Nebraska teams were so good that you could have put in a JV squad and finished in the top 25.
My point is, you don’t have to win with criminals. And you can win with a blue collar attitude. Would I prefer 10+ wins every year? Absolutely! But I know where Oregon State is in the “football world” and I’m OK to accept a down season every now and then (2005, 5-6 with home losses to Stanford and Arizona) so long as it doesn’t become the norm. My point is, I want to see improvement. And if not improvement, then no decline. 8-10 wins a year is just fine by me.
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Jan 29, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
But let’s face it, the big names in many conferences got there and stay there not by employing criminals, but by winning at all cost mentalities.
by MeanBobMean on Jan 29, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes many programs are very consistently up there (USC for the Pac-10 and I would say Florida on the national scene), but still you have to consider this is college football and lots of variables and even the big names are not 100% consistent in staying there. Think of these schools that have vastly different approaches: Nebraska, Miami, Florida State, Alabama, Penn State and so on. Even Florida and USC have not always been on top. Take a school like Ohio State too and they seem to be consistently there but can’t get that one last game. So I don’t know if I would say “winning at all cost mentalities” really thrives in NCAA sports.
So in the end I think we have got away from I think was your initial question. I think the answer to your question about what do we want our Beavers football program to be (and this is just my opinion which is a mix of my own feelings and how I think others feel) is best answered by your own example/summary:
Our coach, Whittingham, turned down money to live in a town he loves and be with kids he recruited and made promises to. That’s the program I want. I can live with a few losses if the integrity and humanity is there.
I think Utah is a great example of coaching, players, institutional support, increased fan interest, etc. all leading to more support and national exposure. I may be wrong but I wouldn’t classify Utah’s success as “winning at all cost,” but a gradual and steady building of a quality program. And again I think where maybe we diverge a little is I’m not sold on that one has to comprise to have the high level of success at this level.
I would like to add that this whole “criminal” thing isn’t the best “quality” standard IMO. There are way too many complex societal, legal, and cultural sets of issues around the label of “criminals” to use as a barometer of an entire program’s attitude.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 29, 2009 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well . . .
That’s part of my point, no one is at the top forever and always, but how much extra alumni cash, better bowl games, and free coverage translating into recruits comes from being a legendary football power, like Alabama or Florida? Notre Dame and MIchigan? Michigan was ranked pre-season. None of these team was coached well for awhile (or currently), but all were/are still getting extra press, amazing talent, etc.
The SEC and old SWC, and the Big 8, were dirty.
How many national championships and 10 win seasons were bought? Is that OK? Where do we as fans draw the lines?
So, what kind of people and team do we want to be?
I agree it is more difficult for that kind of outright cheating to occur today.
Utah is a good example, up one year down the next, my question is can you live with that or do we have ot have 9-11 wins annually to be satisfied and what do we become in the process?
We’ve fixated on criminals, I’m talking not about them, but in the fans attitudes towards the program—attitudes and expectations.
Just my personal opinion, but Oregon State fans do not want to become FSU fans—I hope Utah never has that problem.
by MeanBobMean on Jan 30, 2009 7:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, it is an interesting position to be in really for us (and I assume Utah) and good questions about what do we want from the program.
We’ve fixated on criminals, I’m talking not about them, but in the fans attitudes towards the program—attitudes and expectations.
I agree!
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 30, 2009 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So personally as a fan
I’m here:
But I know where Oregon State is in the "football world" and I’m OK to accept a down season every now and then (2005, 5-6 with home losses to Stanford and Arizona) so long as it doesn’t become the norm. My point is, I want to see improvement. And if not improvement, then no decline. 8-10 wins a year is just fine by me.
I’m totally okay with a down year for that’s the nature of the game and especially okay with a down year if it is around the same time of another up year where we are beating up on Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl, or making a run at the Rose Bowl, or soundly beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl (!!!). But that’s just me as an OSU fan.
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 30, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
deadly at home?
Hmm, unfortunately I wouldn’t say “deadly” I would say we are very good at home and for the most part better than on the road (USC is a great example). But a few games come to mind that take us out of the “deadly” category.
Again though I think the Riley teams could be approaching that “killer instinct” level and then Reser could be a place teams fear playing at (sooner or later USC will have to get the point I think!). Up to now I would think teams coming into Reser are more on the “concerned” level and not “fearful.” Here’s to hoping this changes soon though!
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 28, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ASU ’08, UW ’07 come to mind. We won both games, but they were both a lot closer then they should have been
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Jan 28, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, besides the more ugly games (losses), the ASU game this year is a great example. I was at that one and totally thought it was going to be an easy game. I think this also gets back to a conversation we all have had about the home crowd and this game there was that flatness on OSU’s part (especially on offense, and yes we had to switch QBs during the game with Lyle going out) then the crowd got flat until the game picked up in intensity. So it became this circular thing with the team and fans feeding off each other in both good and bad ways. And yes definitely was not a “deadly” atmosphere at all! But have to admit in that second half it was an exciting football game though.
That UW game though was bizarre city in how it played out though, one of the strangest games I can remember (I saw that one on TV).
-RVM
by rvm on Jan 28, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
