SB Nation User Blog: The VD Special

Beavers Golf Ranked Top 10!

The VD Special — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:16:23 -0000

So I saw an article in The Barometer about the "#2 Ranked Men's Golf Team" and I thought, hm, if I didn't know they were ranked that high as I'm going to school here, I bet that a lot of OSU fans have no idea.

Now the only thing I could find to support this was NCAA D1 Rankings which has us ranked #8th as of October 4th. But hey, I think it's cool for a school from the north, not generally known for its golf prowess, to be ranked so high. If you look at the rest of the top 25, only Illinois (#4) and Michigan (#16) are from the north. And those schools have higher enrollment, bigger athletic budgets, and are generally regarded as better institutions for public learning (although I disagree mightily, that's an argument for another time), which are key components when recruiting in the smaller sports. Anyways, that's all for now. I'll try to learn some more about the golf team, and introduce our 2nd/8th ranked Men's Golf Team to Building the Dam! (or if anyone does follow the team and would like to take it from me, that would also be greatly appreciated!)

GO BEAVS!

Poll

Do smaller sports rankings matter to you at all?

Of Course! I'm a Beaver through and through!

10 votes

Nah. Not really. It's cool and all, but Football, Basketball and Baseball are what matter

4 votes

14 votes | Poll has closed

Blount coming back?

The VD Special — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:31:30 -0000

Just got the text from ESPN. For those who don't believe me here

Now, I know some of you don't care what I personally have to think about the Duck program. But if Kelly were to reinstate Blount after his actions, just because the backlash has calmed down, I would think even less of Kelly as a coach than I did before. This would be an absolute black mark on the Oregon program, in my honest, humble, and unbiased opinion.

Your thoughts, Duck fans?

Where do we go from here: Open Thread

The VD Special — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:09:22 -0000

The damage has been done. There will be no starting out 3-0. But 2-1 is the best start we've had in a while as well, so there is something to take away from that. This isn't my fan post saying my opinions, it's an open thread where we can discuss what the Beavers have to do from here, as well as a reflection on these last few games. While yesterday was a disappointment for sure, I don't think THE OUTCOME was unexpected. What was most disappointing for me was the manner in which we lost. We could have beaten this team. We could be in the top 20 nationally right now. But the season isn't over. 11-1 is still (technically) possible. So here we are guys, let's discuss what this team needs to do, and reflect and the season that has been so far. I especially want to hear well thought out comments from the regular.s

Ducks are the college football version of Paris Hilton…they’re famous for no reason, they look pre...

The VD Special — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:59:43 -0000

Ducks are the college football version of Paris Hilton…they’re famous for no reason, they look pretty and they got a rich daddy.

Kirk Herbstreit

Question to Cal fans. I come in peace!

The VD Special — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:45:32 -0000

Hello fellow Pac10ites. Or is it Pac10ians? PacToneians? I digress.

A friend and I were discussing the upcoming college football season the other day, and we ended up on a topic that we were both stumped on, and I was hoping that you Golden Bears could offer your insight:

Why doesn't Jeff Tedford receive more heat from the fans and higher ups for supposed mediocrity? And what has to happen for there to be pressure on him?

Now, before you think I am coming in here and bad mouthing Jeff Tedford, I want to clarify myself. I think Jeff Tedford is an excellent coach. The numbers support him. Taking a team that in the previous year went 1-10 to 7-5 is an outsanding job, by any measure. To take a team that went 1-10 to 10-2 in three years is incredible. He has produced NFL talent by the numbers, and to just name a few that pop into my head, include Marshawn Lynch, JJ Arrington, Aaron Rodgers, Kyle Boller, Alex Mack, Justin Forsett, DeSean Jackson, and most certainly in the future Syd'Quan Thompson and Jahvid Best.

However, given all this talent, since that 2004 season Tedford has only managed to finish in the top 3 in the Pac10 just once, in 2006, with a share of the conference title. Then its been two 4th place finishes and a 7th place finish.

For say, Oregon State, Washington State, and Arizona, this succes under Tedford would be (and should be) commended. But for UC Berkeley, a school thats renowned academically, has a spot on location, and good facilities, 8-9 wins shouldn't be the standard.

Now, I could be way out of line. I'm sure many will point to the injuries in 2007 as the demise. I'm sure some will also point to the lack of presence that Cal had in football prior to Tedford's arrival during the Holmoe years. And maybe some will say that this year, given what the team has, should be a good measuring stick. A Heisman-esque talent in Jahvid Best, an experienced, talented (yet unproven) QB in Kevin Riley, and of course Syd'God Thompson.

I would like your thoughts on Jeff Tedford, and what your expectations of Cal football is. Sure, everyone wants to be National Champions year in and year out. But as an Oregon State fan, I know that's not going to be the case. While I'm not happy with 8-9 wins a year, it certainly beats the alternative. But I feel that for a school like Cal, 10+ wins should be the norm, and I'm curious as to your take on this.

Poll

Will Jeff Tedford ever lead Cal to a BCS game?

Yes

100 votes

No

9 votes

109 votes | Poll has closed

Attention all BtD Readers! College football Q&A!

The VD Special — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:12:18 -0000

Hey guys! Well college football is almost here and we at Building the Dam are putting together a college football Q&A for you. The people answering questions, other than myself, are:

Jake

ArbyOSU

AndyPanda

ConnorOSU

and RVM

But we need YOUR help! Anything you want answered about the upcoming football season will be answered by us! Whether you want to know what incoming freshman we Beaver fans should look forward to, to who might be the darkhorse in the Pac10. Hell, ask questions about the rest of the country! I will be taking the questions up to Monday, so try and have them in by then! Anything college football will be answered. Take care and Go Beavs!

--The VD Special

VD's Take: Age limits for NBA, NFL

The VD Special — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:23:40 -0000

[Ready for another one of VD's takes? Check out his previous take on Round Robin scheduling if you haven't already. -jake]

So there has been a lot of discussion lately regarding the whole Memphis knowingly or unknowingly allowing Derrick Rose to play last year, despite rumors that not only did he get his high school transcripts offered (from a D to a C) so that he was eligible, but also even more ridiculously that he had somebody else take his SAT for him. The discussion includes talks about OJ Mayo, Reggie Bush, that whole SCandal down there. Basically any player who has ever received money or special "assistance" that the whole situation could have been avoided had players just had the opportunity to go pro right out of high school.

There are good and bad points to both views. On the one hand, its true. A guy like Derrick Rose was ready for the NBA. Everybody knew he was a one and done. Same with DeMar DeRozan down at USC. And there are a few others around the NCAA college basketball scene that are the same. And its going to be that way every year. However, the flip side for the NFL is that most importantly, most players aren't physically ready for the NFL at 18, 19 or even 20. My take after the jump.

My take: The rules in place are there for a very good reason. Don't be fooled when the NBA says the rules are in place are to protect the kids. David Stern said that recently. The rules are in place for the NBA to protect...gasp...the NBA. Scouts got railed too many times on trying to pick potential over production, and too many times they failed. Take a look at the previous five drafts BEFORE this rule went into place. For every one LeBron James that makes a splash, there are 10 guys IN EACH DRAFT that don't. They make these decisions because agents and their friends and their family are in their ears saying "you're going to be great!" And they believe it. And why wouldn't they? So the NBA said it had had enough, and it wanted guys to get a year at the next level so they could see if the players were for real. Quite honestly, I like the rule. I think it protects both the NBA and the players. Yes, it hurts the NCAA when these types of allegations come out. It sucks, I get that. But I was getting sick and tired of hearing about wash outs. And I know you all were too. Would it have been dumb to put LeBron James in college basketball for a year? Yes. But what if a guy like Qyntel Woods had gone to college? Maybe that extra year or two would have helped him develop. Not only into a better basketball player, but also not so much an idiot. Remember that college coaches are there to raise men (most of the time). NBA coaches are there to win championships. You may think it sounds stupid, but I know I have a legitimate point here.

The NFL is an entirely different beast all together. As said above, kids in high school are just not physically ready for the NFL. Every once in a while you get a guy like Jonathan Stewart, or Maurice Clarrett, or Adrian Peterson. But that's 3 guys. Out of hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of high school players. If I had to make a qualitative guess, 1% of all high school seniors are PHYSICALLY ready to play in the NFL. Of those 1%, maybe 1 kid each year is talented enough AND phyiscally ready to make the jump. And even in that case, I would not trust an 18 year old with an NFL playbook. Hell NO. Even after freshman year there aren't many guys physically ready. Sophomore year gets better, but positions are limited to generally defensive backs and wide receivers/running backs. After a kids 3rd year in college, that is when the real growth takes place. And its physically normal to take 2-3 years to bulk up, especially with as much weight as these kids need to put on nowadays. But just like the NBA, I agree that the NFL has taken a good stance that protects themselves as well as the kids. But really, they are one in the same, aren't they?

There may be some argument as to the fact that the MLB and soccer leagues don't have age limits, which is true. But what the MLB does have is a minor league system. Guys rarely make it to the league before they are 23 anyways. As for soccer, well, I played soccer so that is my people, but it isn't the sport where you need to be the strongest and most muscular human beings ever, let's just say that. Is it physically demanding? Yes. But more so with the conditioning then anything else.

So all in all, I think the age limits are good for sports. Does it hurt the NCAA when allegations like this come out? Absolutely. But the NBA is a business, and not one to protect the NCAA either. David Stern said that kids don't HAVE to go to college, they have the option of overseas, sitting out a year, do whatever. But they are going to have to develop physically and I think it's a good idea. As for football, I think it's pretty obvious that this is a good thing. Kids just aren't physically ready for the NFL. So in that case, even if there wasn't an age limit, you wouldn't see many kids going to the NFL anyways. And quite frankly, the boosters in college football are going to find a way to get money to these kids no matter what. Take Michael Oher for example. For those that haven't heard his story, look it up, it's a very sad yet happy story. Best wishes to him. But he was a top football prospect when he was "adopted" by a family in Memphis, TN when he was 16, I believe. Turns out, his "family" just happened to be Ole Miss grads, who were in hot pursuit of Oher. Interestingly enough, Michael Oher became a Runnin' Rebel. Man, those SEC fans really will do anything for their football.

Thoughts?

Poll

What do you think of the age limit rules?

Good for both

32 votes

Good for NFL but not NBA

16 votes

Good for NBA but not NFL

2 votes

Not good for either

5 votes

Maybe we should get an age limit on SBNation. Goodbye Jake and qrsouther!

3 votes

58 votes | Poll has closed

VD's Take: Round Robin Scheduling

The VD Special — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:16:43 -0000

[This VD's Take seemed to get buried by all the baseball talk of the past weekend, so we're bringing it back to the top of the page so you can vote and comment if you didn't get a chance to last week. Keep your eye out for more of VD's Takes during the offseason! --jake]

In case you haven't seen, Ted Miller wrote a blog [today last week] about how the Pac-10 coaches voted 6-4 in favor of an 8 game conference schedule, rather than a round robin. This doesn't mean that we will see an 8 game conference schedule this year, however. Ted Miller writes:

In an informal poll conducted by the Pac-10 blog, conference coaches voted 6-4 in favor of ending round-robin conference scheduling and reverting back to an eight-game slate, which was how things were before a 12th game was added in 2006.

That's about how a straw poll went in May during the Pac-10 meetings in Phoenix, and feelings were strong enough against the nine-game conference schedule that the athletic directors will review the issue during their June meetings in San Francisco.

There are valid points on both sides of the argument. I think the general feeling of the fans is that the round robin is the way to go: it is more exciting, and it is nice to play every team, every year. And nobody wants to have to play USC and not play Washington, when they are battling for a conference championship. It just isn't fair. But the coaches bring up a very vaild point. Ted Miller talks about how they voted:

The vote mostly split like the current conference standings, with the top-half teams favoring nine games and the bottom half teams wanting to go back to eight.

There's a good reason for that. Nine conference games insures five conference teams will lose an extra game every season, which could be the difference between earning bowl eligibility or not.

He then discusses how Stanford and Arizona State were both 5-7. Had they eliminated one conference game and added a non-conference patsy win, they could have been 6-6, and the Pac-10 would have played in seven different bowl games.

My take after the jump...

My take? I can absolutely appreciate the FACT (and I say it like that, because it is a fact) that if the Pac-10 played one less conference game, then it would likely mean one more win for most of the teams. They could schedule a patsy and end up being 4-0, or at the very least 3-1. Could you imagine how many Pac-10 teams could end up in the top 25 with those kinds of records? I can tell you. Just look at how many SEC teams end up in the top 25 before November starts. Hell, even LSU and Auburn were in the top 10 last year at one point, and both finished with less-than-stellar records (and wayyyyy out of the top 25). The one other argument is that some teams only get 4 conference home games, and have to hit the road 5 times, while others stay home 5, and only hit the road 4. I say, good teams can win on the road. Not always, but usually. If you can't win on the road, then you probably don't deserve a bowl game anyways. So, in the sense that it could potentially add an extra win, I like the idea of playing an eight game schedule. HOWEVER....

I absolutely HATE the idea of playing an eight game conference schedule, and I'm sure after you guys see my reasoning, you will agree. First and foremost, while the argument is made that the Pac-10 could add a patsy, I think that the Pac-10 would take this opportunity to add another BCS school, just like we have recently. And to be quite honest, if we DID play an eight game conference schedule, I don't think the Pac-10 fans want to see a game against Portland State when they could see one against, at the very least, an up and coming team from a mid-major conference, say Nevada or New Mexico or Colorado State. The SEC and Big 12 use these patsy games for revenue. But the simple fact is, there isn't the same level of passion out here then there is there. I'm not saying the fans aren't as good, or as interested, but we aren't going to come out in the hundreds of thousands to see a 56-0 whipping of an FCS team. You think USC is going to sell out the Coliseum to see them play UC Davis? No way. Oh fantastic, Arizona State is playing Northern Arizona is 95 degree weather! Count me out. The way the Pac-10 generates interest in the non-conference games is by scheduling teams the fans want to see.

But most importantly, the reason I love college football (and Oregon State) is because it's fun. And I have fun being able to play every team every year. I have fun knowing that we played ASU at home this year, thus anticipating a road trip to Tempe next year. I enjoy seeing the same teams, and same players. I missed seeing Reggie Bush play against Oregon State my freshman year of college. Oregon fans, how badly did you want revenge on Cal after the fumble of '06. Now imagine if you had to wait two years to play them. And imagine having to play in Pullman two years in a row, in November. Cal and UCLA fans, what happens when you don't get to play each other. Cal and USC, what happens when YOU don't get to play each other. What if UW and UO didn't happen every year? Madness! I want a crack at what every Pac-10 team has to offer, and an eight game schedule doesn't allow that. Take a look at the 2000 season. Oregon, Washington, and Oregon State all finished 7-1, each having only lost to each other (OSU to UW, UW to UO, and UO to OSU). This led to a 3-way conference championship tie, with UW getting the rep to the Rose Bowl, OSU nearly getting left out of the Fiesta Bowl, and, get this, a Pac-10 champion in the... Holiday Bowl? I don't have each team's schedule, so I'm not sure who was left out for each team, but I'm assuming at least one of the team's would have lost to someone down the line.

Basically, all I'm saying is don't get rid of the round robin. Yes, it may do better for "national perception." And we finally might get two Pac-10 teams in the BCS again if we do eliminate one conference game. But as a fan, I say this is the worst thing possible for the league. Stick with the round robin! Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Poll

So now you have heard VD's take. What's your thoughts?

Keep the round robin scheduling!

58 votes

Get rid of it! The Pac-10 needs more bowl teams.

4 votes

62 votes | Poll has closed

The Top Ten Pac-10 Games from Last 5 years: #6-4

The VD Special — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:07:56 -0000

Note: Sorry it took so long to get up. Computer broke. Anyways here we go!

For those that don't know, Building the Dam has been recapping the best Pac-10 games from the last 5 years. To recap:

10. Washington @ USC, 2006. USC wins 26-20 on too-late snap by UW

9. Washington @ Cal, 2006. UW ties game with heave, loses in OT 31-24

8. Cal @ UCLA, 2005. UCLA scores 19 points in 13 minutes to top Cal 47-40

7. Oregon @ WSU, 2004. Ducks score 13 points in final 5 minutes for comeback win in thriller, 41-38

So there you have the first 4 games. Now for #s 6-4.

#6. November 15th, 2008. Arizona (6-3) @ Oregon (7-3)

What was at stake: Oregon was debuting the new black, wingged uniforms, and Arizona was hoping to be Oregon a 3rd straight year and put themselves in a good bowl situation.

What happened: Oregon came out fired up because of the unis, and they didn't disappoint. With not even a minute gone in the 1st quarter, Jeremiah Masoli ran for a 66 yard touchdown to get Oregon off to a hot start.

Oregon Vs. Arizona Highlights (via ArcticAutzen)

After that, it was all Oregon the rest of the first half. Following a field goal with no time left, Oregon led Arizona 45-17 at halftime. But the Wildcats were not to be denied. The 2nd half, UA came out as solid as the Ducks in the first half, and UO looked as flat as the 'Cats. Scoring 28 points in a 16 minute span, Arizona cut the lead to 45-48 with just over 6 and a half minutes remaining. After a 3 and out for UO, Arizona got the ball back. With 5 and a half minutes left, UA had a 4th and 3 from their own 45 yard line. This is when Mike Stoops did what Mike Stoops does best: Mess up. He went for it, and didn't get it. Oregon with the ball, handed the ball to LaGarrette Blount and he ran for a 40 yard touchdown to put the game out of reach 55-45.

#5. November 24th, 2006. Oregon (7-4) @ Oregon St (7-4)

What was at stake: 3rd place in the Pac10. Civil War bragging rights. A perfect, miserable, rainy Saturday in Oregon. Everything the Civil War should be.

What happened: Oregon State came out and plugged away, like it usually does, and just wore down the Oregon defense with 4 yards here, 5 yards there. Leading 20-7 at halftime, it appeared OSU was in control.

2006 Civil War - Oregon at Oregon State (via thomasg86)

Going into the 4th quarter down 14-27, Oregon was not ready to give up just yet. After a Jonathan Stewart touchdown with 6 minutes left, Oregon State blocked the extra point. However, Oregon got the ball back and scored on a 26 yard pass to Jordan Kent from Brady Leaf. Kicking an extra point would have tied the game. But Mike Bellotti gave the all-clear for a two point conversion attempt. The Ducks got it and were up 28-27 with 3 minutes left. Oregon State got right back in it with a couple big throws from Matt Moore, and set up a soggy, wind-in-your-face 40 yard field goal for Alexis Serna. But as we say in Corvallis "In Alexis We Trust" and he came through big, nailing it right down the middle, giving OSU a 30-28 lead with 1:12 left. Game not over. Jonathan Stewart hit the return to the outside, and if not for a game saving push out of bounds at the OSU 43, would have scored. Oregon marched down to the OSU 27, when Oregon State called timeout with 20 seconds left. Then this happened (view from student section):

Oregon State Blocks UofO's Field Goal to Win 2006 Civil War (via panda2432)

Now all Beavers take a big sigh of relief: Game Over. Beavs win 30-28.

#4 October 6th, 2007. Stanford (1-3) @ USC (4-0)

What was at stake: Oh just the Stanford students annual pilgrimage to LA for the USC game. And USC being a 41-point favorite. And USC's national championship aspirations. But that didn't matter because USC was going to stomp Stanford...

What happened: We all know what happened. John David Booty threw 4 interceptions. Stanford played the game of their lives. All it came down to was a 10 yard touchdown pass from a freshman Tavita Pritchard with 49 seconds left on 4th and goal to the back of the end zone against the #1 team in the country in front of 90,000 of their fans. But no big deal right?

STANFORD UPSETS USC (via kevbomac2205)

This was not only felt in the Pac-10. It was felt all across the country, especially in Louisiana...

LSU's response to USC losing!! (via pinklsutiger3405)

So there's 4, 5, and 6.

Check back tomorrow for the 3 Best Pac-10 Games from the last 5 years! Any guesses?

--The VD Special

The Top Ten Pac-10 Games from Last 5 Years: Part 2

The VD Special — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:38:14 -0000

Building the Dam is recapping the best of the conference games from 2004-2008. To recap so far:

#10 Washington @ USC, 2006: USC wins 26-20 on too-late snap

#9 Washington @ Cal, 2006: Washington ties game with heave, loses in OT 31-24

So, here we are, at the eighth best Pac-10 game from 2004-2008

#8 October 8th, 2005: Cal (5-0) @ UCLA (4-0)

What was at stake: #10 Cal's 12 game regular season win streak, and #20 UCLA getting it on in what was a top 20 football game, but more importantly, a top 5 public institution THROW DOWN!

What happened: An exciting game that featured nearly 1,000 yards of offense and only 1 turnover for each team. Maurice Jones-Drew had 5 touchdowns on the day (3 rushing, 1 receiving, 1 punt return) and accounted for 279 total yards. The game was back and forth until Cal hit a field goal with 13 minutes left in the game, putting the Bears up by 12, 40-28. A touchdown for the Bruins with 7 minutes left brought them to within a score, but they were going to need to stop the high scoring Bears. Which is what happened. And with 1:35 left, MJD stepped up one more time for UCLA

UCLA winning touchdown vs. Cal 2005 (via CFBFanaticfan)

They missed the 2-pt conversion to make the game 41-40 with only a minute and a half remaining. They need one more stop to be sure, and they got it. An interception set up a final MJD touchdown with no time let to give the Bruins a 47-40 win, and ended Cal's 12 game regular season win streak.

#7 October 9th, 2004: Oregon (1-3) @ Washington State (3-1)

What was at stake: Not much. Had this game been between two better teams, it probably would have been near the top, but a great game none-the-less.

What happened: The game was back and forth all day long. Washington State looked to have possibly wrapped things up when they hit a field goal to put the Cougs up by 10 with 7 minutes left. Oregon was not to be denied. Led behind Kellen Clemens, Oregon put up 13 points in the final 5 minutes, including a 13 yard TD run by Clemens with a minute and a half to go, to win 41-38. The real stat of the game was Oregon (and Clemens) domination on offense. 646 yards of total offense, with Clemens going 36-55 for 437 yards and 3 touchdown passes, and adding an additional 3 touchdown runs to go with it. I've never been a Duck fan, but Clemens' six touchdown performance that day will be forever etched in my mind as a great college football performance. Right behind Joey "5-pick" Harrington in the 2000 Civil War.

--The VD Special