You can argue somewhere else about whether Alabama or Oklahoma State more deserves to play LSU for the national championship. But if you want to argue about whether there are really 70 teams out of 120 whose records are deserving of post-season play in one of 35 bowl games, you have come to the right place.

I'll get the football rolling by suggesting that there should only be enough bowl games to allow the top 25 and 15 honorable mention teams to play in the postseason. That's 20 bowls, featuring 40 teams. The remaining bowls would be eliminated, and the mediocre teams that would otherwise play in them would stay home during the holidays and watch better and more deserving teams play. Maybe they'd learn a thing or two.

First, let's admit why there are so many bowl games to begin with: GREED. The bowl sponsors, the communities in which bowls take place, the TV networks, advertisers, and merchandisers of junk with school names and mascots emblazoned all over it, the conferences and teams, even the coaches, whose contracts provide bonuses for bowl invitations -- all of them want to make some money off of gullible fans. It is obvious that there are many teams participating in bowl games whose seasons were a source of frustration and embarrassment to their fans. Those fans want to make the best of a disappointing season, to be rewarded for sticking with their teams, to be deluded that mediocrity is really just another word for success after all.

Second, I must admit to a personal bias against teams with losing or .500 records. Obviously, teams like UCLA (6-7), with more losses than wins, have not earned the right to a bowl invitation. But why on earth should 6-6 teams be accorded that honor, or any honor, other than a pat on the back for at least not losing any more games than they won? I will even go so far as to propose that teams with 7-5 records, which are just one game better than 6-6, should also not be invited to bowls. I mean, really, since those "winning" records are the result of cynically scheduling a couple of patsies from lesser conferences to make up for expected losses to more worthy opponents, are they really post-season material? What exactly have they proven, other than that they know how to manipulate their schedules to misrepresent their athletic achievements?

Okay, enough of the pontificating. Here's my list of 29 unbowlworthy teams this season, in no particular order, followed by a list of the bowl games that are promoting and profiting from mediocre postseason play:

* UCLA (6-7)

* Utah State (7-5)

* Marshall (6-6)

* Arizona State (6-6) Note: This team collapses and fires its coach, but still gets to play Boise State (11-1)?

* Nevada (7-5) Note: This underperforming team gets to play Southern Mississippi (11-2)?

* North Carolina (7-5)

* Missouri (7-5)

* Western Michigan (7-5)

* Purdue (6-6)

* Louisville (7-5)

* North Carolina State (7-5)

* Air Force (7-5)

* California (7-5)

* Texas (7-5)

* Washington (7-5) Note: Ah come on. This uninspiring team deserves to play high-flying Baylor (9-3)?

* Iowa State (6-6)

* Mississippi State (6-6)

* Wake Forest (6-6)

* Iowa (7-5)

* Texas A&M (6-6)

* Northwestern (6-6)

* Utah (7-5)

* Vanderbilt (6-6) Note: Improvement from abysmal to mediocre in 2011 earns them the right to play Cincinnati (9-3)?

* Illinois (6-6)

* Auburn (7-5)

* Ohio State (6-6)

* Florida (6-6)

* SMU (7-5)

* Pittsburgh (6-6)


Now for the 15 worthless bowl games that wouldn't be missed. Unless you're a fan of a participating team, you'd be better off catching a re-run of "Miracle on 34th Street," or taking a long walk in the fresh air than wasting your time watching these games. You have to pace yourself this holiday season, so you have enough energy and attention left to watch the remaining 20 bowl games. Avoid these, and you'll thank me.


* New Mexico Bowl

* Famous Idaho Potato Bowl

* Beef O'Brady's Bowl

* Little Caesars Pizza Bowl

* Independence Bowl

* Belk Bowl

* Holiday Bowl

* Music City Bowl

* MAACO Bowl

* Pinstripe Bowl

* Meinke Car Care Bowl

* Fight Hunger Bowl

* Chick-fil-A Bowl

* Gator Bowl

* BBVA Compass Bowl


The few worthy teams playing in the above bowls could be redistributed among the remaining 20 bowls, if undeserving teams in those bowls were disinvited.

Okay, yeah, yeah, I know, there's no chance that the proliferation of worthless bowl games featuring mediocre teams can be stopped, given fundamental flaws in human nature that are hardwired into our genes. I must have suffered a random mutation to even think such thoughts. Any other mutants out there?

You can argue somewhere else about whether Alabama or Oklahoma State more deserves to play LSU for the national championship. But if you want to argue about whether there are really 70 teams out of 120 whose records are deserving of post-season play in one of 35 bowl games, you have come to the right place.

I'll get the football rolling by offering my (1st) annual lists of worthless bowls and their mediocre teams that should be at home during the holidays watching more deserving teams play. Maybe they'd learn a thing or two.

First, let's admit why there are so many bowl games to begin with: GREED. The bowl sponsors, the communities in which bowls take place, the TV networks, advertisers, and merchandisers of junk with school names and mascots emblazoned all over it, the conferences and teams, even the coaches, whose contracts provide bonuses for bowl invitations -- all of them want to make some money off of gullible fans. It is obvious that there are many teams participating in bowl games whose seasons were a source of frustration and embarrassment to their fans. Those fans want to make the best of a disappointing season, to be rewarded for sticking with their teams, to be deluded that mediocrity is really just another word for success after all.

Second, I must admit to a personal bias against teams with losing or .500 records. Obviously, teams like UCLA (6-7), with more losses than wins, have not earned the right to a bowl invitation. But why on earth should 6-6 teams be accorded that honor, or any honor, other than a pat on the back for at least not losing any more games than they won? I will even go so far as to propose that teams with 7-5 records, which are just one game better than 6-6, should also not be invited to bowls. I mean, really, since those "winning" records are the result of cynically scheduling a couple of patsies from lesser conferences to make up for expected losses to more worthy opponents, are they really post-season material? What exactly have they proven, other than that they know how to misrepresent their athletic achievements?

Continue reading this post »

I'm afraid we already know the answer to that question, given Chip Kelly's dominance over Mike Riley since Kelly's arrival in 2009. But for the sake of conversation (and the sanity of Beaver fans), we have to at least entertain the possibility that Riley and his colleagues will adjust their decrepit system to contend with the revitalized offenses expected from Mike Leach (Washington State), Rich Rodriguez (Arizona), and whoever replaces Rick Neuheisel (UCLA) and Dennis Erickson (Arizona State; Houston's Kevin Sumlin is the preferred choice), and that they will mount an effective offensive charge against these and other opponents.

Fortunately, the Beavs won't face Sacramento State in 2012! Unfortunately, they won't face USC, either. OSU's win over USC last year shocked coach Lane Kiffin, and it showed that the elder Riley is capable of defeating a young whippersnapper coach once in awhile. But once in awhile won't be often enough when team after team led by young, innovative coaches fire away at the Beavers in coming seasons.

So what should Riley do to keep himself and his team from being left behind by the new wave of Pac-12 coaches, not to mention the rest of the conference? Come on, readers, share your ideas below. Maybe Riley will read them and take heed.

Saturday's 196.600-196.325 win by #5 Oregon State over #6 Utah follows recent victories over #2 Stanford and defending national champion UCLA and adds to the momentum of this 17-5 Beaver team as it continues on to postseason competition.

Oregon State trailed at the half, in a meet where both teams were a bit off of their usual form. As the squads experienced falls, miscues, and even a missed jump by one of Utah's floor athletes, their coaches tried to calm their teams and inspire them to score big in remaining routines. It was the Beavers who responded with clutch performances to take the lead and seal the victory before a crowd of 3,738 at Gill Coliseum.

Next Saturday, OSU will compete in the Pac-10 Championships, held this year in Westwood, at UCLA's Pauley Pavilion.

Craig Robinson came to Oregon State University in April, 2008, to replace Jay John as head coach of the men's basketball team. John (72-97 overall and 28-68 in the Pac-10) had been fired the previous January after the Beavers opened the season with a 6-12 overall record and an 0-6 Pac-10 start. The team did not win another game that season, ending 6-25 overall and 0-18 in the conference.

Robinson, seen at left in an AP photo during happy times in his first year, is a former assistant at Northwestern University who came to OSU with only two years of experience as head coach, and that at Ivy League Brown University. He was unknown to most Beaver fans, many of whom expressed disappointment over his hiring. They had wanted a bigger name coach, someone with proven credentials in major college ball, someone who could return OSU to the hardcourt glory of the Ralph Miller years--the winning records, the conference championships, and the near-guaranteed postseason bids and national recognition.

But Robinson won over a lot of fans in his first year. Off-court, he said all the right things, acknowledging that it was an honor for him to take charge of the OSU team, a Pac-10 program with a basketball heritage, speaking with confidence about the modified Princeton offense he planned to install, and pledging he'd give equal measures of skills education and tough love to his players--those he inherited from his predecessor and those he would recruit. And, boy, did things look bright for recruiting with the basketball-playing President's brother-in-law sealing the deals. On-court, the new offensive and defensive strategies paid off quickly, as an inspired and well-coached team equalled its previous season's 6-win total in their 12th game. The Beavs got their first Pac-10 victory, over USC, in January, and went on to a 7-11 conference record, 18-18 overall, including their postseason wins in taking the CBI championship. Clearly, it was Robinson who had made the difference, since the players were the same ones who had performed so poorly under coach John the year before.

Things were looking up for Oregon State basketball. With Robinson's leadership, and his new recruits, surely the team would achieve a winning record in his second season, and by year three, well, anything was possible--contending for the Pac-10 championship, earning a bid to NCAA postseason play. But that's not the way things have worked out. Something has gone terribly wrong.

The Beavers went 14-18 overall, 8-10 conference, in their second season under Robinson, losing in the first round of the CBI, after another charity bid to an OSU team with a losing record. This season, the team slipped further back, finishing 10-19 overall, 5-13 Pac-10. The record is particularly frustrating for fans, because their team has shown strength in causing turnovers and snagging rebounds, but more often than not has been unable to convert those possessions into baskets. Indeed, Beaver shooting from layups to 3-pointers and everywhere in-between has been poor in most games. Although the team has at times shown brilliance--as in its victories over Arizona, Washington, and USC--the more typical performance involves falling way behind, scratching to catch up, then wavering in the final minutes to lose. Fans cannot understand how the inspirational Robinson of year one, the teacher of skills Robinson, the tactician Robinson, could turn into the exasperated Robinson of years two and three.

Oh, coach Robinson still flashes a smile and talks a great game in his off-court interviews and speaking engagements. But in view of his three-year record at OSU (40-49 overall, 18-28 Pac-10), fans can't help but wonder if the man is capable of delivering where it counts, on the court. Was Robinson's first year turnaround success just a fluke? Or is it the following two years that are unrepresentative of his coaching skills and that first year that showed us the REAL Craig Robinson, back to the wall, coaching his heart out?

Even though it's only been three seasons, fans can't help but rate the coach, and it's their prerogative to do so. Let's convert your estimate of coach Robinson's performance into a numeric rating. RATE THE COACH ON THE POLL BELOW, AND FEEL FREE TO EXPLAIN YOUR RATING IN THE COMMENTS.

The 197.0-pt milestone achieved by Beaver gymnasts in winning the quad meet against Stanford, Denver, and California in Berkeley on Sunday has put the team in the spotlight as one of the very best nationally. Only six other teams have scored 197 this season. The Beavs entered the meet ranked #7 and emerged #5. The loss by #2 Stanford, which scored 196.5, was its first of the season.

The highlight of many fine performances by OSU gymnasts was Makayla Stambaugh's career-high 39.525 score in the all-around, earning her the meet title, and Britney Ranzy's career-high tying 9.925 score on the vault, which clinched the team's 197.0.

Next up for OSU women's gymnastics is the last home meet of the regular season, against #6 Utah, on Saturday, March 12th.

#7 OSU's recent defeat of #9 UCLA to take 2nd place in the Chicago Invitational (which #2 Stanford won), maintains the Beavers' position in the national rankings and keeps them on pace to challenge the best in the sport for an NCAA championship. There are four more meets, including the Pac-10 Championships, between now and April 2nd, when the Beavers host the NCAA West Regional in Gill Coliseum.

Their selection to host a regional gives the Beavers a home court advantage against the five other teams competing. This, together with the Beavers' strong performances this season, makes OSU a favorite to be one of the top two teams from the regional to go on to the NCAA Championships in Cleveland, April 15-17. OSU competed in the 2010 championships, in Gainesville, Florida, which UCLA won.

Next up for the Beavers is a meet here in Corvallis on Friday the 25th at 7:00 pm against Washington, San Jose State, and UC Davis.

This post originally bemoaned the Gophers getting roughed up,14-1, on February 18th by St. John's in the season opener for both teams, at the Big Ten/Big East Challenge in Clearwater, Florida. But then a fan commented about the Gophers coming back in their second game to beat Connecticut, and the road trip thread was on.

It's "the longest baseball road trip EVER," because the collapse of the Metrodome's roof caused the Gophers to extend their away games schedule with games originally scheduled at home. The team will play 23 straight road games in Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, and California, returning on April 1st to open its conference season against Purdue at the Twins' Target Field, where they will play their 12 Big Ten home games this season. Three non-conference home games will be played at Siebert Field.

During the epic cross-country journey, I encourage fans to stop by this thread to comment about the triumphs and travails of Gopher baseball.

All of us who follow college baseball know that aluminum bats generate more raw power than wooden ones. This is the result of the properties of the metal, as well as the hollow core. Average hitters, who have generated better than average stats with metal bats, are in for a big letdown this season, as college baseball replaces the old bats with new ones, still metal, but de-tuned to NCAA certified specifications to behave more like wood. Tests indicate that the 22 inch sweet spot on the old bats has been reduced to 5 inches, so batting averages are likely to fall as hits propelled by contact nearly anywhere on the old bats turn into easy outs off the new bats. On the other hand, hits generated by the skills of the best players -- who can put that 5 inch sweet spot on the ball -- will continue.

In addition to making the college game more like the majors, where players use traditional wooden bats, the new bats will also make the game safer for players, coaches, and fans. I think the new bats will favor teams that can play small ball well -- making contact to put the ball in play, bunting earlier and more often in games, running the bases aggressively, putting pressure on the defense to make plays. Teams that have thrived off of long ball hitting, will have to rethink their offense, or suffer a lot more losses than they're used to.

Oregon's coach George Horton, whose Cal State Fullerton Titans won the 2004 College World Series, says, “I think it’s going to change the complexion of college baseball. We’ve been using it in BP and scrimmages, and I can tell you it’s made a big difference. . . . Some of those big, strong guys have gotten into some balls pretty good, and they’re not going over the fence.”

Overall, college baseball's balance of power on the field of play will shift a bit more from hitting to pitching. Adding another strong arm could make a bigger difference in a team's win-loss record than adding a long-ball hitter. Some will say that's the way it's always been in baseball, but while that may be true of baseball played with wooden bats, I don't think it's been true of the metal-bat-dominated college game until this season.

How will the new bats affect 2011 Gopher baseball? Vote in the poll below, and add your comments.

Note: I posted a similar fanpost on the Oregon State University sports blog, Building the Dam.

All of us who follow college baseball know that aluminum bats generate more raw power than wooden ones. This is the result of the properties of the metal, as well as the hollow core. Average hitters, who have generated better than average stats with metal bats, are in for a big letdown this season, as college baseball replaces the old bats with new ones, still metal, but de-tuned to NCAA certified specifications to behave more like wood. Tests indicate that the 22 inch sweet spot on the old bats has been reduced to 5 inches, so batting averages are likely to fall as hits propelled by contact nearly anywhere on the old bats turn into easy outs off the new bats. On the other hand, hits generated by the skills of the best players -- who can put that 5 inch sweet spot on the ball -- will continue.

In addition to making the college game more like the majors, where players use traditional wooden bats, the new bats will also make the game safer for players, coaches, and fans. I think the new bats will favor teams that can play small ball well -- making contact to put the ball in play, running the bases aggressively, putting pressure on the defense to make plays. Will that help Oregon State? Teams that have thrived off of long ball hitting, will have to rethink their offense, or suffer a lot more losses than they're used to. Will that hurt Arizona State?

Overall, college baseball's balance of power on the field of play will shift a bit more from hitting to pitching. Adding another strong arm could make a bigger difference in a team's win-loss record than adding a long-ball hitter. Some will say that's the way it's always been in baseball, but while that may be true of baseball played with wooden bats, I don't think it's been true of the metal-bat-dominated college game until this season.

How will the new bats affect 2011 Beaver baseball? Vote in the poll below, and add your comments.

With no home field to host games, unranked in the preseason coaches poll despite winning the Big Ten last year, unable to warrant even a column inch of coverage in The Daily Gopher on the eve of the new season, the University of Minnesota baseball team is climbing aboard the bus and leaving town. Word on the street is that they're heading for Florida, then to North Carolina, then Arizona, and if the gas money holds up, it'll be on to California for an indeterminate time period (the Cal Poly games may have to be moved from the Metrodome to SLO, and then who knows, maybe the games with Bakersfield will have to be played in California, as well).

If they have a winning record on the road-trip-to-end-all-road-trips, they'll return to Minnesota in April as conquering heroes, ranked in all the polls, their victories lauded in the press, full of confidence as they take the field, under a new roof and sparkling lights, before cheering throngs of fair weather fans, to defend their conference title. If their road record is undistinguished, their efforts will be unappreciated, their return will be unheralded, and they will play in a near-empty dome. This isn't southern California, where college baseball fans turn out in droves to soak up the rays and breathe in the salt-scented breeze off the ocean, while applying tanning lotion and picking jalapeño peppers out of their nachos, no matter what the records of their Trojans, Bruins, or Titans may be.

As I mentioned in a comment to a previous post, the USA Today/ESPN Top 25 Coaches’ Preseason Poll ranks Oregon #10. Other ranked Pac-10 teams are #1 UCLA, #12 Arizona State, #16 Stanford, and #25 Arizona.

Bruin fans want it all this year, after their team came so close in 2010 (51-17 record, 2nd place Pac-10, and runner-up to South Carolina in the College World Series). Duck fans have high expectations after their 2010 record (40-24, 5th place Pac-10).

Beaver fans are no longer satisfied to relive history (back-to-back national championships in 2006-07). OSU baseball has fallen far from those heights (e.g., their 2010 record was 32-24, 8th place Pac-10). We want Oregon State to regain national prominence, compete for the conference title, earn a bid to post-season play, and make it all the way to Omaha in 2011. We know that once you get to the College World Series, anything can happen (South Carolina? Really?).

Is this to be a year of Beaver baseball achievement -- or another season of mediocrity? Let's crack some peanut shells and talk baseball.

Oregon State scored a season-high 196.625, but UCLA's defending national champion gymnasts answered with their own season-high of 196.675 to outpoint the Beavs by just .05. Whew! The crowd of 7,128 in Gill Coliseum ooohed and ahhhed the fine performances by athletes on both teams in this hard-fought contest.

These teams, among the very best in the sport, will meet again on February 11 at the IGI/Chicago Style Classic, and they are good bets to compete in Cleveland April 15-17 in the NCAA finals.

After blowing out ranked teams by a couple of points in each of their first two wins, the Beavers suffered their first loss, to another ranked team, Oklahoma, by less than a point. A few miscues in previously reliable routines created a margin that was too great to make up, even though the Beavers finished strong. The final .65 difference is a credit to the Sooners' ability to overcome their own miscues and take first place in the quad meet. OSU finished second, outpointing Denver and Centenary.

Next up for the Beavers is a meet against the defending national champion UCLA Bruins, currently ranked #8. This contest between two talented teams on Friday the 28th in Gill could be decided by the closest event and meet scores of the season.

The quack addicts down I-5 have really overdosed this time: "Oregon will beat LSU" (in the opening game), . . . "The Ducks will rush for more than 4,000 yards" (presumably for the season, not the first game) . . . "The Pac-12 championship will be played in Eugene," . . . "Oregon will win the national championship. I'm gonna be the first one to say it." 

Read the above fowl language, and more, here. Obviously, a bad day in Dallas (the site of the game with LSU) could end the flock's dreams of a flight to New Orleans (site of the BCS championship) before it even got off the ground. But for the sake of argument, let's give 'em their annual game against an SEC Tiger team (LSU this time). Who or what else could clip the Ducks' wings during the 2011-12 season?

Have some fun dreaming up recipes for duck soup. Throw in a black swan or two.

In a second straight blowout victory, #8 OSU prevailed 195.925 to 193.300 over #15 OSU (Ohio State University). As I've mentioned previously, thousandths of a point can be the difference between winning and losing, so the margins the Beavers are racking up in their individual and team scores against ranked opponents are truly impressive. Also impressive is the coaching success of Tanya Chaplin, who reached the 200-win milestone Friday night.

Gymnastics is arguably the sport which gives Oregon State its best shot at a national championship this season. These women athletes deserve the support of BTD and other Beaver fans.

Interesting discussion worth a weekend bump. -BN

According to a study reported by the Wall Street Journal, there's only about 11 minutes of actual playing time in a 60-minute NFL game. I think that's true of college football games, too. Eleven minutes of action, and 49 minutes of standing around. And since the players are split into offensive, defensive, and special teams, and there are substitutions throughout the game, even first team all-Americans may average just a few minutes of action a game. And most of the players, the linemen, don't even have to move more than a yard or two from their stance in a given play.

Of course, a lot can happen in those short bursts of activity in between the longer periods of standing around or warming the bench. And there's no denying that those few minutes of running, passing, blocking, tackling, etc. do require highly developed athletic skills, strength, and conditioning. But could you blame fans of soccer (which is called football everywhere but in the U.S.), basketball, or hockey for saying that American football is less demanding athletically than their sport?

Continue reading this post »

According to a study reported by the Wall Street Journal, there's only about 11 minutes of actual playing time in a 60-minute NFL game. I think that's true of college football games, too. Eleven minutes of action, and 49 minutes of standing around. And since the players are split into offensive, defensive, and special teams, and there are substitutions throughout the game, even first team all-Americans may average just a few minutes of action a game. And most of the players, the linemen, don't even have to move more than a yard or two from their stance in a given play.

Of course, a lot can happen in those short bursts of activity in between the longer periods of standing around or warming the bench. And there's no denying that those few minutes of running, passing, blocking, tackling, etc. do require highly developed athletic skills, strength, and conditioning. But could you blame fans of soccer (which is called football everywhere but in the U.S.), basketball, or hockey for saying that American football is less demanding athletically than their sport?

After all, in those three sports all players on the field, court, or ice (except goalies) are moving every minute of the game, playing both offense and defense, running or skating back and forth, often at full speed. And every player handles the ball or puck many times in the course of a game, using their feet in soccer and their sticks in hockey. There are substitutions, of course, but the first team soccer, basketball, or hockey players certainly see many more minutes of action in a game than their American football counterparts, and they play many more games a season.

So what's with all the fuss about American football? Is it much ado about nothing, mostly standing around in colorful uniforms, and only exerting oneself for a few seconds at a time, lest one might break a sweat, while the superior athletes are going all out in soccer, basketball, or hockey for long periods every game, in more games per season?

Please vote in the poll and comment below. Is there another team sport you think I should have included in the poll? By all means check "Other" in the poll and feel free to tell me why I'm wrong to have omitted your sport.

NOTE: This was cross-posted on two other SB Nation blogs--Building The Dam (Oregon State University) and Bruins Nation (UCLA).

According to a study reported by the Wall Street Journal, there's only about 11 minutes of actual playing time in a 60-minute NFL game. I think that's true of college football games, too. Eleven minutes of action, and 49 minutes of standing around. And since the players are split into offensive, defensive, and special teams, and there are substitutions throughout the game, even first team all-Americans may average just a few minutes of action a game. And most of the players, the linemen, don't even have to move more than a yard or two from their stance in a given play.

Of course, a lot can happen in those short bursts of activity in between the longer periods of standing around or warming the bench. And there's no denying that those few minutes of running, passing, blocking, tackling, etc. do require highly developed athletic skills, strength, and conditioning. But could you blame fans of soccer (which is called football everywhere but in the U.S.), basketball, or hockey for saying that American football is less demanding athletically than their sport?

After all, in those three sports all players on the field, court, or ice (except goalies) are moving every minute of the game, playing both offense and defense, running or skating back and forth, often at full speed. And every player handles the ball or puck many times in the course of a game, using their feet in soccer and their sticks in hockey. There are substitutions, of course, but the first team soccer, basketball, or hockey players certainly see many more minutes of action in a game than their American football counterparts, and they play many more games a season.

So what's with all the fuss about American football? Is it much ado about nothing, mostly standing around in colorful uniforms, and only exerting oneself for a few seconds at a time, lest one might break a sweat, while the superior athletes are going all out in soccer, basketball, or hockey for long periods every game, in more games per season?

Please vote in the poll and comment below. Some may say that baseball, water polo, or some other team sports deserve to be included in the poll, but I am exercising my discretion as author of this piece to leave them out. By all means check "Other" in the poll and feel free to tell me why I'm wrong to have omitted your sport.

NOTE: This was cross-posted on two other SB Nation blogs--The Daily Gopher (University of Minnesota) and Bruins Nation (UCLA).

The orange and black-clad ladies opened the season by outscoring Louisiana State decisively, 195.400 to 193.350 (that's a blowout in the world of gymnastics, where thousandths of a point can be the margin of victory).  The #8 Beavs were favored to beat #12 LSU, but the way they did it, overcoming injuries and winning EVERY individual event, was an indication that they are a team to be reckoned with nationally in 2011. Let's make some room on BtD to follow the OSU gymnastics team, as they compete for a place in Cleveland at the NCAA Championships, April 15-17.

I want to root for the University of Oregon, the representative of my conference and my state in the BCS Championship Bowl, but I'm finding it hard to do so. Some of my best friends are Oregonians, not to mention a few of my favorite relatives. I own a home here. Some of my taxes help support that institution of higher learning in Eugene. What could possibly account for my reluctance to cheer on the Ducks against the Tigers? Some of my least favorite relatives come from Alabama. I have carefully avoided them for a lifetime, and I don't recall ever rooting for any team from that state, much less Auburn University, an institution of which I am only dimly aware. There is simply no good reason for me to root for the Tigers on New Year's Day. But I think that is exactly what I am going to do. For one bad reason. I hate the Ducks, and I cannot bring myself to put that feeling aside for even a day.

Well, now that I've gotten that out of my system, what about YOU? Surely, you're a better man than me (or a better woman). You can take the high road. You have a more forgiving nature. You can see the value in a victory by Oregon, bringing glory to the Pac-10 and the state you love. For the sake of The National Championship, you can forget Civil Wars and other historic battles between Beavers and Ducks. For one day, you can put aside your petty grievances. You can bury the hatchet. . . . Not there. In the back yard. . . . Or can you?

LEAVE A COMMENT. TAKE THE POLL.

Mike Riley, the man, is beloved in Corvallis. Count me among his admirers. He's knowledgeable, caring, loyal, trustworthy, honorable. His staff and players say that he treats them like "family," and in return they accord him not just respect, which every leader requires, but affection, which few men in leadership positions hope for and fewer receive.  

Can you forgive me for looking past Riley the man to Riley the coach? Am I permitted to do that on Building the Dam? Are you prepared to discuss his record dispassionately, now that his tenth season as Oregon State University's football coach has concluded? Does it not seem an appropriate juncture for us to assess his accomplishments?

Let me begin with a few facts. You can correct or expand on them as you wish. And perhaps we can then come to a conclusion, or more likely several points of view, as to whether coach Riley has earned a rating of 5 Tails (Beaverrific), 4 Tails (Above Beaverage), 3 Tails (Beaverage), 2 Tails (Below Beaverage), or just 1 Tail (Beavbysmal). ENTER YOUR RATING IN THE ATTACHED POLL.

Parenthetically, I will point out that coach Riley's record in three seasons of National Football League competition, 14-34 (.291) with the San Diego Chargers, was, shall we say, undistinguished. That is none of our concern. We are interested in his achievements during a decade at OSU:

In the Pac-10, coach Riley is 43-42 (one game over .500)
Conference championships = 0
Civil War record = 4-6 (.400)
His overall record is 69-54 (.561)
BCS bowls = 0
Second- and third-tier bowls = 5-1
2003 Las Vegas Bowl (beat non-ranked, 8-4 New Mexico)
2004 Insight Bowl (beat non-ranked, 6-5 Notre Dame, whose coach had been fired at the end of the regular season)
2006 Sun Bowl (beat non-ranked, 8-4 Missouri)
2007 Emerald Bowl (beat non-ranked, 6-6 Maryland)
2008 Sun Bowl (beat #20, 9-3 Pittsburgh)
2009 Las Vegas Bowl (lost to #14, 10-2 BYU)

Have I left out any pertinent facts for an assessment of his performance? I'll reserve my rating until I have the benefit of your input, but I can tell you this. I do not think he warrants a 5-Tail, Beaverrific rating.

Just two more victories and our beloved Beavers will have crawled out of the muck and mud of mediocrity and thrown themselves, gasping for breath, grasping at straws, onto the shores of six-six-success. Bowl Eligibility! Another season saved! Now, on to the New Mexico Bowl to do battle against the mighty Lobos. What? The Pac-12 contract with the New Mexico Bowl doesn't take effect until 2012? And the Lobos, on whose Albuquerque campus the New Mexico Bowl takes place, will be staying home for Christmas anyway, given their one-win season? Drat.

Well, no matter. There are other bowls. Lots of them. Thirty-five at last count. Room for 70 teams to display their football prowess to legions of fans on TV and in the stands. Somewhere out there is a bowl for our Beavers. Maaco? Chick-fil-A? Little Caesars? Kraft Foods? Beef 'O' Brady's? What auto repair shop or fine food purveyor will have the honor of hosting our Beavers this year?

Enough of the sarcasm. Let's get real. There are only a dozen or so bowls that matter, because only the top 25 teams, not the top 70, have played well enough to earn the privilege of appearing in a bowl game. Many years ago, 6-6 teams turned down bowl invitations, because they accepted the fact that they were not worthy of post-season play. Nowadays, there are far too many bowls in which middling teams contest little more than their mutual futility on the field.

Bumped to the front page. Interesting topic for a Thursday night. --JB

As the CWS gets underway, I'm reminded once again that college players bring something to the plate that is alien to the tradition of The Game. Metal bats. Aside from stodgy old tradition, I think there are at least three good reasons college baseball (and softball) should be played with bats made of wood instead of metal:

1. Safety--Pitchers, as well as players and coaches at first and third base, are at the mercy of line drives accelerated to dangerous speeds by metal and composite bats.

2. Style of play--If you can propel the ball into the air, instead of at the heads of infielders, it's likely to go deep. Compared to wood bats, metal and composite bats produce more extra base hits and homers, cheapening them and changing the nature of The Game.

3. Professional leagues--If pro baseball uses wood bats, why should college players use metal and composite bats? In a game that emphasizes statistics, how can college stats be meaningful when driven by non-wooden bats?

The NCAA's moratorium on composites threatens those non-wooden bats with a ban, but I wish they'd go all the way and ban metal bats, too. Why not?

The Big 12 doesn't have to end with the departure of 6 or even 7 teams. Rather than the 5 remaining teams being absorbed into other conferences, why not keep them together and rebuild the Big 12 by poaching teams from other conferences or even dismembering another conference? For example, Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico, Air Force, TCU, Utah, and BYU, might prefer to be in the Big 12 rather than having a few teams from a defunct Big 12 join them in the MWC. 

I was surprised that the NCAA gave postseason bids to 8 teams from the Pac-10. I'm not in favor of going that deep into ANY conference, even when a team I root for is a beneficiary, because I know that many other conferences are given only one bid. There were a lot of worthy #2 teams that stayed home so that several teams from the Pac-10 could play on in futility. The Portland Pilots come to mind.

As I write this, only two Pac-10 teams, ASU and UCLA, have made it past the regionals to the super-regionals. WSU will join them if they win today. That trio represents the 1st to 3rd place finishers in the conference. The other teams selected, although they won some postseason games, were clearly not of the same calibre, as the conference standings might have predicted. Who knows what the postseason results might look like if some #2 and #3 teams from other conferences were allowed to play.

[UPDATE: WSU lost, so only two Pac-10 teams made it through to the super-regionals.]

The PR wonks tell us that representatives of the Pac-10 and Big-12 have been meeting to talk about partnering on TV contracts and some inter-conference scheduling, so the two conferences can force a network to pay big bucks for the privilege of broadcasting games. I still don't get it. That sounds fine on paper, but I don't see how it works in the real world. 

We're going to have Pac-10 and Big-12 games on the same channel? And teams from the two conferences are going to schedule more games with each other? The fans are really going to go for this? Oregon State fans are going to watch Baylor vs. Kansas State just because it's on the Pac-10-Big-12 network? Oregon State fans want to schedule games with Baylor, Kansas State, and other Big-12 teams? (Yeah, I know, I'm conveniently leaving out Texas and Oklahoma, but stay with me on this.)

Frankly, I just don't care that much about the Big-12. Didn't grow up in the Midwest. Wouldn't waste much time following the exploits of their college athletic teams. Sure, if they're playing Pac-10 teams, I'll watch. But I wouldn't be interested in every Pac-10 team locking in a game or two every year with Big-12 teams. No doubt the fans of Big-12 teams feel the same way about the Pac-10. A Washington State-Kansas State matchup on the Pac-10-Big-12 channel probably wouldn't attract a big viewing audience. Yeah, I know, a (fill-in Pac-10 team) vs (Texas or Oklahoma) matchup would, but that's happening this year with UCLA and Texas, without the two conferences having to partner.

These two conferences don't fit any better together than Dr. Frankenstein putting somebody's head on somebody else's body with bolts and sutures. So please, tell me why a possible Pac-10-Big-12 partnership is any less monstrous from the fans' perspective. (If our conference needs to respond to the possible Big-10 expansion, and if we like the Big-12 so much, then why not just steal a couple of Big-12 teams for the Pac-10? Texas would be a good fit athletically and academically, if not geographically.)

That was Mike Parker's summation of the Beaver baseball team after its 4-1 loss to the 19th ranked San Diego Toreros Monday night. Let's see, "desultory: adjective -- lacking a plan, purpose or enthusiasm." I've been accused of pessimism on BtD, so I am simply passing on the radio sportcaster's words. Don't blame the messenger. 

Washington, having been swept by UCLA last weekend, arrives in Corvallis Friday for a 3-game series. The Dawgs will be a snarling pack. A desultory performance offensively by the Beavs would be suicidal . . . to their slim post-season hopes. Will Pat Casey and his coaching staff find a way to fire up the offense? Will Stefen Romero share some of his batting mojo with the rest of the team? Tune in Friday to find out. And keep a dictionary near the radio.