Beavers Over or Under Achieving?
"dvieira" from "Addicted to Quack" raised a good question recently, that given the success of Oregon State's program over the last decade, and given how many players the Beavers have put into the NFL, is it time to put to bed this notion of the "over achieving Beavers"? Without anything more than a couple of Sun Bowl victory during Mike Riley's tenure, and given the talent available, has Mike Riley in fact UNDER-achieved? Is it time to start thinking "Holiday Bowl or Bust" instead of "Sun Bowl or Bust"?
Five winning bowl appearances in six years rates as one of the better performances in recent years, but the absence of a first or second tier bowl game in that run tempers the record.
The status of "over achieving" has been bestowed on the Beavers based on their ultimate success relative to the reasonable expectations going in. That assessment is in turn based on the perceived talent level. By perceived talent level, we are talking about the ratings of the recruits, and the rating of pro potential of incoming players, as determined by supposed experts, and compared to the assessment of other teams' players by the same experts.
The degree of expertise of the scouting services, and to a lesser degree, pro scouts & personnel managers, is open for debate, but these people do spend a great deal of study on the matter, and they, collectively, do a good enough job of it to get paid rather well for it. And because they won't continue to get paid if they aren't reasonably accurate, they are well motivated to get it right.
Working from that premise, the continued relatively low ranking of the Beavers' recruiting classes, which does not align, relative to the majority of other programs, with results or professional player production, suggests that, at least in terms of player development, Coach Mike Riley, whom Buster Sports' Nick Daschel rates as the second best coach in the Pac-10, and his staff are among the best, and are still over-achieving.
But that point leads to two related places where the Beavers could be considered to be under-achieving. The continuing inability to recruit numerous players that don't need quite as much development contributed to the persistent problem of slow starts, the well publicized three year run of starting the season 2-3.
The non-conference losses don't matter so much in terms of OSU's bowl prospects unless the Beavers are good enough to run the table in the PAC-10. This is because no one but USC is very likely to go to a BCS bowl other than the Rose Bowl unless they win all their non-conference games, as the Beavers did when they went to the Fiesta Bowl. The Rose Bowl, and the rest of the bowls the PAC-10 has a tie in with for that matter, are determined first by the conference finish, with the relative attractiveness of teams and where they have been recently acting mostly as tie-breakers.
But in two of those three 2-3 starts, the losses that cost a Holiday Bowl trip were conference losses in September. And as everyone recalls, the loss to Stanford last August was the one that stood in the way of a Rose Bowl trip, since a win in that one would have rendered the outcome of the Civil War meaningless in the conference race.
A combination of more manageable scheduling this season, and a changed approach to pre-season preparation is an attempt to address the slow start problem. It's also essential in a year that not only features a very difficult road schedule, but also will see half the home dates used before October. Another 2-3 start would spell a year in which the Las Vegas and Emerald Bowls could even be very difficult goals to reach. So credit Coach Riley and staff for an adjustment to address the slow start issue.
That leaves the subject of recruiting. Which can be a mine-field. In recent years, careful recruiting of character and academic ability to compliment athletic ability has clearly been a focus. In Corvallis at some times in the more distant past, and certainly elsewhere to this day, the side-effects of the problems that disregarding these factors have caught up with, and then over-whelmed, teams whose' recruiting disregards local talent and player type in pursuit of wins at any cost.
Riley admits to looking for, and benefiting from those one, two, and three-star players who signed letters of intent with Oregon State because they were totally ignored by the likes of USC or UCLA, and started looking like blue-chippers when they became juniors or seniors. The winning, and the resulting national exposure, does attract better talent. That 'system' is only now firmly in place.
"I didn't really understand, until about two years ago, what that time really means,'' said Riley recently. "What it really means to have seniors become leaders, because in order to do that, it takes time to get all that in place.''
And some of the blue-chip athletes aren't going to "fit", and therefore wouldn't succeed. Either they fit, or they don't, and as Riley explains, often times the players aren't shy about telling us who doesn't deserve to put on that OSU jersey.
"They (the older players) get it, and therefore they are part of the teaching models, and they pass it on to the younger guys,'' Riley says.
But not all of the 4 and 5 star recruits are shaky citizens or weak students. So the question remains, why, given the bowl trips and the number of NFL prospects produced, is Oregon State continuing to struggle to attract a larger share of the players that truly can go wherever they feel they will have the best chance at success?
And while the production of numerous players capable of playing in the NFL, and more in other professional leagues, speaks to the strength of the Beavers' best players, it doesn't address the quality of the team's depth. The players that set the table so that the difference makers can turn Sun Bowl and Emerald Bowl teams into Rose Bowl and Holiday Bowl squads.
Certainly perception vs. fact is a factor, but recent and continuing success and renovation of facilities should be helping in that area by now. And the increased national attention being one of only ten teams to string together three consecutive top 25 teams has brought will help too.
So the answer to the question of over-achieving vs. under will more likely be answered in the next couple of years than the last few. If Oregon State reloads, as it appears they have been able to do, with the likes of Marcus Wheaton and Michael Philipp, and the Beavers continue to climb in the rankings, then the over-achieving tag will go away, and the under-achieving one will stay away. If not, then it may signal a need to further revisit the recruiting game plan, similar to how the pre-season preparation plan was adjusted going into this inning.
An interesting sidenote is that the recruit rating services who listed Philipp as such a top prospect did so at the guard position, even though, as Philipp noted, "I've never played guard (in a game) in my life." Maybe the ratings aren't so well informed after all?
Adjusting perception, however, is to a degree beyond the control of the coaching staff. TV presence is a big factor, and with two more years on the current contract, don't count on Athletic Director Bob DeCarolis to be able to work many miracles. Better alternative delivery, such as web-availability is more plausible, and should be something worked on right away.
Next might be some creative marketing, and also some market research. The success of the "I am Orange" campaign will be measured not only by increased ticket sales and contributions, but improved actual attendance. With record attendance (four of the Beavers' five largest announced home crowd's ever were the last four home games of the 2008 season), that might not seem to be an issue, but until the games against "lesser" opponents are indistinguishable from the marquis matchups, then the devotion to the program won't equal that of the upper echelon teams, and the push to continue to expand and improve the program will lag. And that's something hard for prospects to miss when they look around Reser, after looking around at Texas, and quickly forgotten when they check out Ohio State.
Oregon State is still one of the smallest stadiums, in one of the smallest markets, of the consistent top-25 teams. And on one of the tightest budgets as a result. That will continue to be a factor in getting those four and five star recruits, because when talking to a top high school junior, the conversation is about not only where the program is, and will be in a couple of years, but often about where it will be in five or six years, by the time that player completes a red-shirt season, and a career.
While Riley and staff are well established at the moment, no one can be sure today who will be on the staff in 2015. As long as DeCarolis is doing the hiring, it seems reasonable that if Riley or a successful assistant need to be replaced, a top quality candidate will be found.
But recruits, especially those from outside Oregon, aren't that familiar with what Bobby D has done. They look at teams playing 7-8 games in front of crowds ranging from 75,000 to upwards of 100,000, and do the math. And Oregon State comes up clearly short.
A recruit knows Joe Paterno may retire at Penn State, and coaches like Urban Meyer and Pete Carroll may be lured from Florida and USC respectively by contracts that pay more than the entire Oregon State football budget. But with the dollars those programs bring in, and the number of supporters' resources they can marshall, there is no doubt that Penn State, Florida, and USC can attract another top tier coach if and when it becomes necessary. But the nagging question of whether there is another Craig Fertig in their future if they come to Corvallis remains.
Riley and his staff enjoy the support in Corvallis and around the state that a combination of winning and character warrant, so it will be awhile before the over-achieving vs. under-achieving (or some of both) question becomes critical. But clearly it is a question people inside and outside of the program will be watching for an answer to while they watch the Beavers the next couple seasons. The more that are watching might make a difference in the answer.
12 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What I think
We are right in the middle. Yes I think we are capable of making the Holiday Bowl regulary. But I don’t think we are under achieving when we make the Sun Bowl. Just because it’s in a bad location doesn’t mean it’s a bad bowl.
In my opinion the Pac-10 Bowl tie-ins are in three tiers. The first tier is the Rose Bowl. The second Tier are the Holiday and Sun Bowls (and the Alamo when we get it.) And the third tier are the Vegas, Emerald, and Poinsettia Bowls.
IMHO I am just fine if we are making the Holiday and Sun bowls each year as long as we throw in a Rose Bowl appearence here and there. Even tier three is okay every couple of years.
You can say that because we haven’t made the Holiday Bowl we have been under achieving. But you can also say that making the Sun Bowl is over achieving.
It all depends on how you look at it. At the end of the day all you can hope for is that they play their best each Saturday and it will all fall in to place.
Hi, my name's Connor and I am addicted to College Football
Holiday Bowl or Bust
Should be a goal. But I don’t think we should be upset or dissapointed if we make the Sun Bowl. Except for last year of course, that was dissapointing.
Hi, my name's Connor and I am addicted to College Football
I agree to a point
You are right Connor, all we can hope for is a best effort each week. But that isn’t just by the players, or the coaches. It is everybody involved with the program, and we do still have some work to do.
The article was written to address both a fair question, but also some of the reasons we are where we are, and the issues that must be considered in moving ahead.
Football, like most things in life, is not a fair deal. Everyone has different advantages and disadvantages. And now, more than ever, if you aren’t working to move ahead, you are in fact moving backwards. As difficult as the progress made in the last 10 years was, especially given the previous 30, the next 10 years may be even more challenging.
Fortunately, with Coach Mike Riley, AD Bob DeCarolis, and President Ed Ray, on our side, I feel the team leadership probably couldn’t be in better hands.
Andy Wooldridge
Go Beavs!
How quick we are to forget that this program is only a decade removed from being one of the God awful programs
These things take time. I think people are starting to see things turn around NOW at OSU, not the past few years. This is obvious in last years recruiting class and the commitments we have so far for this next year (the class of 2010 is shaping up quite nicely, for those who don’t already know). Yes, we have had slow starts of epic proportions. But people do in fact remember us beating USC twice. Notice how the two games everyone talks about are the SC and Civil War games from last. Almost nobody mentions us getting smashed by Penn State or losing to Stanford, until there is a lengthy debate. EVERYBODY remembers the USC game, and that quickly vanquished memories from the two previous games.
I think we can take the “over achieving” tag off Oregon State, because its clear that this program no longer is. But under achieving is still a stretch. Dvieira can say what he wants, but for Mike Riley and Co to do what they do year in and year out is a major achievement, and is in no way “under achieving.” Under achieving is having a budget and facilities and backing that the Ducks do, and still only make a run towards the Pac10 title every couple of years.
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 Aug 24, 2009 12:36 AM PDT reply actions
Speaking of the USC game
How does this not get you pumped for Football?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8o5t6wrQo
Hi, my name's Connor and I am addicted to College Football
VD, you're killing me
So I go and raise a good question and you get on my case for it eh? Here’s what you said today, emphasis mine
I think we can take the "over achieving" tag off Oregon State, because its clear that this program no longer is. But under achieving is still a stretch. Dvieira can say what he wants, but for Mike Riley and Co to do what they do year in and year out is a major achievement, and is in no way "under achieving." Under achieving is having a budget and facilities and backing that the Ducks do, and still only make a run towards the Pac10 title every couple of years.
Here’s what i said back in April
http://www.addictedtoquack.com/2009/4/27/855801/morning-quack-fix-42709#14918469
With all of the NFL talent on the Beavs, I’m forced to wonder. Is it safe to question whether or not Mike Riley is underachieving with the talent he has? Obviously the Beaver coaching staff is good at finding "diamonds in the rough" and developing them. But when it comes to turning that talent into wins, it’s sun bowl or bust. I think it was Erickson that took Riley’s guys and got them to a BCS game. With all the accolades the Beavers have received about being the best team short of USC this decade, the best bowl Riley has gotten the team to are Sun Bowls, both in 06 and 08.
Here was your response then
I hate to admit this, but since you’ve brought it up, yes, absolutely I do
And I’ll tell you why: Anytime we have gotten a 4*+ guy, he has never panned out. I’d have to go out to Rivals to find names (can’t think of many off the top off my head) but we have had a couple solid classes in the past where the guys just never did anything. He and his staff do a great job evaluating high school talent, but it seems like they could be doing better. It’s hard to say though, because a lot of his 4* busts have been due to academics, which is surprising given his lack of getting "risk guys"
(Note, it should be 06, 07, and 08, but due to the Sun Bowl’s "rules", they took you guys. Not a big deal, and I get the point you are trying to make, just saying that’s where we have legitimately finished 3rd)
But granted, we had one of our best seasons in a long time this year. Take away the loss to Penn St and Stanford and you have a pretty solid season. Beat USC, loss at the last second on the road to a Utah team that went undefeated and humiliated SEC runner up Alabama in the Sugar Bowl (and quite honestly, we should have won that game). The Oregon game, well what can we say. You guys flattened us. You were playing at such a high level, we were without the heart and soul of our team, and it just made for an embarrassing game. But remember, we were 1 game away from the Rose Bowl. The only other time that we have been that close to a game of that caliber was that Erickson team that went to the Fiesta Bowl. One of the reasons we have struggled recently is the complex offense that the QBs have to deal with. It takes a few years to grasp, and starting sophomores in it, you’re going to do poorly. The reason that anyone can step into Oregon’s offense and run it is because it is very simple. Effective, but simple. Like Coach Boone said in Remember the Titans "Its like Novicane. Just give it some time and it’ll work" We saw what happened once Masoli gave it some time. All that being said, let’s see what he does with a Senior QB (either Moevao or Canfield) and a stud RB, plus a decent OLine, which are necessary for his offense.
I have a lot of thoughts about this, and maybe I’ll do a write up over at BtD, but I have to figure out a way without making it sound like a Riley bashing or "should we look elsewhere" kinda thing, ya dig?
So VD, I appreciate you changing your mind and all but don’t call me out when I just posed the question. I thought it was a good conversation piece, not a platform to bash Oregon. Oregon fans faced a similar situation with Mike Bellotti, especially in the early part of the decade.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
drat, blockquote fail. That’s what I get for not clicking the preview button. Blockquote from VD should be from “I hate to admit this” until right before “So VD…”
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
Sorry, I realize now how the call out sounded
It wasn’t meant to be, that way
Also, please note time of post. I was, well, not all there?
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 Aug 24, 2009 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I think people sometimes get too caught up in immediacy...
2005 was only four years ago. the players that are now seniors were still on the team then. Four years ago the Beavers went 5-6. it wasn’t until three years ago in 2006 that OSU put up a really solid record, 10 – 4. The Sun bowl of that game put the Beavers on the map in many people’s eyes. In 2007, the Beavers showed that they were not a fluke by winning nine games, even with quarterback turmoil. The thing is, in recruiting cycles, that 2007 class was the launch pad for recruiting the Wheaton’s and Philipp’s of this last year’s class. 2007 was what opened the doors in the summer before 2008. Then the 2008 season was what brought them all in. OSU had its best class in years.
So it takes two years to really recruit. For example, Washington has a great class right now based on a terrible class last year and new coaches. That is all anyone has to go on. Well those who know recruiting know it is a marathon. If the Huskies start out 1-5 and look terrible, they may lose some players. So the previous year and the current year are what builds classes.
Using that two year cycle, the 2010 class for OSU is already shaping up to be a very nice class,with some top athletes on board before September. That never happens at OSU. The thing is, these kids that are going into their senior year have seen the Beavers end the season ranked every year they have been in high school. So OSU has built a name for itself with them. If they go out and have another nine win season, it could be a huge deal come the next recruiting class and OSU will be in position to have some monster years in the coming seasons.
There is no better proof than what is happening this year, as the incoming freshmen are so good it is hard to keep them off the field, even in positions of depth like Wide Receiver and Linebacker. I think people who talk about OSU under-achieving probably also think that this last Civil War was the only one ever played. Building a program takes time, despite the miracles that Coach Robinson is producing. After four years at OSU, Mike Riley took the step from 7-8 win seasons with the occasional bummer to 9 – 10 wins with the occasional shot at the title. With the boost we are now seeing in recruiting, OSU should be in line to take the next step over the next four years, starting in 2010. This year’s Beaver squad has the fewest seniors of any team in the conference and returns 8 or more on defense and offense next year. That is the next step in the program and that is what is on the horizon.
Even the ducks didn’t start rolling in these amazing players until four years after the 1994 Rose Bowl.
So no, I don’t think you can say they are underachieving, or overachieving for that matter. They are right on schedule if you ask me…
But alas, no one does.
Riley is a great teacher
One explanation for Riley’s success with two star recruits might be that he is a great teacher and coach once the kids are on campus. His teams regularly improve over the course of the season. This implies to me the kids are learning throughout the season each year.
I agree with much of what was said above
and I added a bit of my expectations for this upcoming season in the Q&A (are we still waiting on Jake?), but will say one thing I would like to add: Is that as much as I would feel and think that Riley has been a total success for where this program was only a decade ago (sigh, bringing back such wonderful memories of years past for me), even if we stayed at this level or even a bit below with the overall wins and bowl appearances, is that at the same time I think Riley teams need to step out of the embarrassing (many times nationally televised) blow outs we have year in and year out. As dumb as it sounds I would be totally happy and proud if the teams lost to a Penn State or Boise State (or UO last year) by a couple scores if they made a game out of it instead of looking like a bit too much like the teams we fielded before the turnaround. That said though, I’m totally proud of those teams for the seasons they had in which they lost those games, but at the same time it is hard to not be very disappointed. Of course I would much rather win those games, but at the same time the ways in which we lose them are just maddening and seem to imply the program cannot step up to a BCS type of level, which I actually believe Riley can achieve in the next few years.
-RVM

by 



































