Yearly Archives: 2011

That stupid football thing

Posted on by
2

When Oregon State University rebuilt the east (approximately) side of Reser Stadium, they were required, as with many government building projects, to incorporate a sculpture of some sort in the design.  When the commissioned piece was initially erected, I liked it.  It was a minimalist representation of a giant football, constructed of metal tubing – like the skeleton of a football, if you will.

But wait, the fine, esthetically pleasing work wasn’t complete! Oh no! The “artist” had plans for more, to make the piece better! Attached to the framework, ALL over it, were a hodgepodge of curving arrows, Xs and triangles.  There were so many things wrong with what was done, that I will have to take them methodically:

1)      Xs and triangles?  What?  Obviously the “artist” had very little knowledge of football, had seen at some time, some where, a play diagram…but he didn’t pay very close attention to it.  Xs and Os (that’s what is meant by the phrase, Xs and Os).  Play diagrams use Xs and Os – the Xs indicate defensive players, the Os represent…wait for it…offensive players!  What a concept!  Sometimes coaches will use Vs as kind of a shorthand X.  The V has the advantage of being pointed in different directions to indicate the defensive players stance in relation to the rest of the field – if the defensive end takes a position on the edge, pointed toward the quarterback, the point of the V can be aimed at the quarterback O.  Still with me here?  The V could also be depicted as a triangle, that wouldn’t raise my hackles the tiniest bit – as long as the artist used Os and either Xs or triangles (not both).  But using Xs and triangles and no Os – well, that is just ignorant.  The triangles should be replaced with Os – and right away.  Every day we leave it as is, the Beavers look like they don’t know their Xs from their Os!

2)      The arrows seem to all have the same length and curvature – which is NOT how a play diagram looks, at all.  Different lengths, different curvature, some straight – that makes more sense.

3)      Color – when first “completed” the figures consisted of a metal frame filled by some sort of shiny material of indeterminate color…that sometimes looked green and sometimes looked yellow and sometimes looked like maybe some poor hint of orange.  What’s wrong with ORANGE and BLACK?  The orangeness and the blackness are much more important than any shinyness.  After pressure from Bob DeCarolis, the colors were changed, but not enough.  They still tended more toward green than orange.  Now the some sort of shiny material has been replaced with colored LED lights behind clear plastic (I assume it’s plastic).  BUT now the colors are red and blue and whatnot.  The LEDs make it show up at night – but it looks like something that belongs in Reno.  C’mon, make them orange and black, put a few LEDs to jazz it up just a little – like a lady you’re taking to a fancy dinner, not like the town strumpet (that is a fine, underused word) – not too much.

4)      Speaking of too much!  There are so many arrows and Xs and triangles (!!!!!) on the sculpture that they overwhelm the football shape – and that shape is more important in the larger scheme of things than arrows or figures or colors or lights.  Take about 2/3 of them down, let the football look like a football with a few Xs and Os (Os NOT triangles, mind you) to give it just a little bit of an “Oh, cool” look.

The “artist” didn’t have the requisite knowledge for the project – he should have studied their subject matter just a TEENY bit more.  Read his own description of the work by following the link in the neon football picture above – it confirms my opinion.

The “artist” sacrificed fidelity to the Oregon State color scheme for some undecipherable artistic vision – one that I think is artistically faulty, which is why I use quotes to bracket the word “artist”.  Frankly, I think the unadorned framework looks better on Parker Plaza than the traveling carnival ride we have now.

A bead-flinging update

Posted on by
Reply

In all fairness to Bob DeCarolis, I need to update folks on the bead-flinging incident.  Bob has taken a lot of heat from fans this season, so I want to acknowledge something he did well.  First, however, I don’t think the reporter from   the Gazette Times ever filed a story using my interview, so I still have a 15 minute credit out there somewhere.  Mr. DeCarolis made an effort to speak with Hog and me before the Stanford game.  He had previously emailed me to tell me that he wanted to meet.  He spotted me as I was headed into Reser Stadium, and said he would meet me in the Loge in a few minutes.  True to his word, he stopped by our table and spent some time talking about the situation.

He had a very realistic viewpoint about the whole situation.  He stated up front that the whole idea is for people to have fun – his words, “have fun”.  That got the discussion off to a good start.  We put forward the promise to not “try for distance” in the future, but to fling thee beads in a kinder, gentler manner.  He assured us that handing beads down to folks was certainly OK, and acknowledged the overzealous foolishness of trying to prevent us from doing so.  He briefly mentioned the “eye” factor (ala “A Christmas Story”), but acknowledged, with a wry smile, that the same type of beads are sold in the stadium itself.

What gave me the greatest reassurance was his acknowledgement of what we all had concluded during the time immediately following the prohibition – someone without authority or control of their lives or circumstances seized upon an opportunity to exert some measure of authority and control over someone else.  He wasn’t referring to the State Police – he was referring to the person who initiated the complaint.

We agreed to sit down and talk about the situation once the football season was over and the holiday hubbub behind us.  Several times he stated that he was certain we could arrive at a solution that would make everyone happy.

Throughout the discussion he was amiable, concerned, willing to listen and, most importantly, seemed intent on reaching a conclusion that would enhance the fun of game day at Reser.  I am looking forward to sitting with Bob again in the next month or two and putting this whole incident behind us.

What is it about Tebow?

Posted on by
Reply

Ttim Tebow has become a lightning rod of controversy.  Why is that?  Let’s take a brief look at the young man.

He is an OK quarterback by statistical standards – leaving out his W-L record.  Although I haven’t verified the numbers, I have read that his stats are better than former Denver Bronco quarterback, and current Executive VP, John Elway’s were at the same point in his career.  Before he took over as the starter, Denver was 1-4.  Since Tebow became the starter, he has led them to a 7-2 record.  He has passed for 11 touchdowns, rushed for 5 more and thrown 2 interceptions.  Not a bad record, so why the vitriol?  Some say he’s not a “real” quarterback – whatever that means and for whatever it’s worth.  Personally, I’d rather have a guy like Tebow, with his record, than a prototypical QB with a .500 winning record.  Others say his delivery is too long – 2 interceptions and 3 fumbles in 10 games say the complaint is without merit, especially when you consider that he runs the ball more than most NFL quarterbacks.  So what generates the heat?

Yes, he kneels and bows his head on the field to acknowledge and thank the source of any accomplishment.  But we have seen many players point skyward, kneel in thanksgiving after a score and otherwise publicly acknowledge their faith without generating controversy.  He verbally gives credit to Jesus Christ for his success during interviews – but so too do countless other athletes without getting the blowback.

He is accused of being self-promoting and drawing attention to himself – but I have noted quite the opposite.  He is reluctant to accept credit for himself, deflecting praise to his teammates and honor to God after a win.  He is quick to accept the blame for mistakes – even those not directly attributable to himself.  His teammates love and respect him.  Those are not the hallmarks of a self-promoter.  In fact, they are the traits of someone we would likely seek out as a friend and colleague.

He does not, as many are prone to claim, believe that God makes the Bronco’s win on his behalf.  He has expressed the spiritual maturity of acknowledging that he plays a game, and it is just a game – and as such, God is unlikely to take much interest, much less involve Himself, in the outcome.  Through his foundation he is building a hospital in the Philippines.

He makes some Christians uncomfortable; and I admit to being one of them previously.  But in light of all the negative attention he has received lately, I decided to look into it a little bit more – though I can’t claim to have deeply researched the topic.  Here is my opinion of the fellow:  He is a believing Christian who takes seriously the instruction to not hide our light under a basket, but to let it shine forth for others to see.  He seems untroubled by the bile spewed his direction, or the mocking of other players.  He continues to try to put Christ in the forefront of his life and to visibly and openly profess his faith…and maybe that makes the rest of us uncomfortable.  We are much more comfortable with those who “quietly” practice their faith.  Shame on us, and good on Tim Tebow.  One thing Tim Tebow is not – he is not ashamed of Jesus.

So, what is at the root of the dislike for Tim Tebow?  As I review it in my mind, the nastiness really started when he and his mother, Pam, starred in an anti-abortion commercial financed by Focus on the Family.  And events of the past week reinforce my recollection, a pro-abortion group is trying to generate donations based on Tebow’s touchdowns (given the loud disparagement of his abilities, and the group’s dislike of Tebow, shouldn’t they tie their donations to some poor indicator of poor performance?). 

There is a great deal of controversy around abortion, and the arguments are understandably often white-hot.  But this case seems on its face to be uncontroversial:  “My mother was advised to abort me,  she chose not to, for which I am grateful.”  Understandable, no?  And it is understandable that Mr. Tebow would take a great and personal interest in the issue, trying to give other unborn children the same chance at life he was given. 

It is also understandable that Michael J. Fox is an advocate for stem cell research, given his affliction with Parkinson’s.  I disagree with his base assumption that embryonic stem cell research provides the best opportunity for a cure.  Other stem cell research has proven much more fruitful, and, I believe, much more likely to produce positive results.  However, given his assumption, his advocacy is understandable.  I might have a faulty memory, but I don’t recall similar vitriol directed Fox’s direction.  I remember arguments against embryonic in favor of adult stem cell research, but I don’t remember such a tide of hatred directed at the person of Mr. Fox.  I recall Rush Limbaugh commenting on the ad,  saying, in effect, that Fox was exaggeratiing the effects of the disease, but nothing like what Tim Tebow has experienced.  In fact, the Limbaugh comments created more stir than the original ad.

It seems apparent that the current anti-Tebow clamor is based directly on his public, pro-life advocacy.  He idenfies very clearly with the personhood of the unborn, and speaks out on their behalf.  He is hated for that.  He is hated, because those who advocate for abortion do not want the general public to think too much about what is being aborted – and Tebow’s commercial is a powerful demonstration of that which the abortion advocates want to keep unspoken.

Chinese-Mexican a culinary delight

Posted on by
5

Chino Bandido:  Chinese-Mexican food doesn’t excite your senses?  You should try it.  This is, without question, my favorite hole-in-the wall restaurant.  It isn’t a dive for several reasons: 1) It is clean, neat and well-lit.  2) The staff is usually young, reasonably attractive, well mannered and helpful.  3) There are too many windows – the entire front wall is window!  4) At no time, from the moment you spot the storefront until you take your first bite of their delicious food, do you ever question your dining decision.

This is actually an un-dive.  The only time I have ever received the slightest of negative reactions from the many people I have personally introduced to Chino’s (those of us who know and love Chino Bandido use the shortened version) was when I said the words “Chinese-Mexican food”.  Once the initiate agrees to trust my recommendation, they never question that decision.

I have a confession to make – I was not attracted to this place because of any recommendation or sense of adventure.  I first became aware of Chino Bandido  while trying to eat at a Barbeque joint next door in the same strip mall.  The barbeque joint is now a place named Byzantium or something like that, which is of no import to my story.  Someone had recommended the barbeque joint, so I decided to eat there one evening while working on a project nearby.  Fortunately, the place was closed – fortunately, although I didn’t think so at the time.  Next door, I spotted a comely young lady locking the door of another restaurant.  Thinking quickly, as I am capable in such situations, I asked her what kind of place was named Chino Bandido (Chinese Bandit)?  She responded with the questionable: Chinese-Mexican.  BUT, I like Chinese and I like Mexican AND she was very pretty (did I mention that before?) and I like pretty, so I made a mental appointment for lunch the next day.  Was I ever surprised!  The food was not just good, it was dream-about-going-back good.  A place that inspires road-trips to Phoenix, and a major reason I was excited in 2000 to hear that the Beavers were going to the Fiesta Bowl!

You order at the counter, and if you are new they give you samples to help you decide.  They have a unique order system, but once you get the gist, it’s pretty quick and easy.  You order and pay, then go to the next room to find a table and sit.  When your order is ready, and it gets ready quickly, one of the servers brings it to you.  Their amazing dishes are served in foil dishes, like you sometimes will get take-out Italian in.  I believe my first order was barbeque pork quesadilla, black beans (refried), and jerk fried rice.  I added  a chile relleno at the urging of the lovely young lady (who, it turned out, was the owner’s daughter and manager).  I realize that I have done many things at the urging of lovely ladies, not all of them have been as rewarding as this chile relleno.

For the rest of my time on the project I ate my lunch at Chino Bandidos.  The day of the 2001 Fiesta Bowl, I brought large quantities of jerk fried rice, black beans, jade red chicken, hendgrenade chicken jen red pork and chile rellenos to the Residence Inn where our fairly large group was staying.  The meal was a hit, nearly as memorable as the game.

If you ever find yourself in Phoenix, go to Chino Bandido – there are 3 items you MUST have: jerk fried rice (it’s spicy), black beans, chile relleno.  After that, make your selection as you please.  After your meal they offer you a choice of a snickerdoodle or chocolate volcano cookie.  For my money, it’s the snickerdoodle, but most folks opt for the chocolate.

Salvation – is that all there is?

Posted on by
1

The last couple of weeks I have received a stunning revelation – stunning in the sense that I have lived so long, and been a Christian since the age of 9, without ever understanding this before now!

I am going to make an assumption, for which I apologize in advance:  Because it took me so long to make this discovery, I will assume many other Christians have missed this as well.  Yet, once seen,  it seems so simple, so basic, so OBVIOUS that I wonder why I ever missed  it – and am reluctant to attribute to anyone else such a colossal lack or lapse of attention.

We know that salvation is the thing, the key, the most important thing, right?  But I had always before, without critical attention, considered salvation the end-all and be-all; that was it!  I’m saved, salvation is a gift, I accept the gift, I’m saved!

But let’s give some critical attention to this.  Paul, in all of his letters, is exhorting, encouraging, correcting and directing the Christians of the day, the saved, those who had accepted the gift of the Gospel.  To what end, then, was he writing?  Of course, he was encouraging the Christians to, out of joy, spread the good news of salvation to others, that they might also be saved – and that is an important part of our Christian life today.  I always knew that this aspect is good and important – but I never before considered it VITAL – I do now.  I have experienced lately, the Christian conversion of a very dear and close friend.  I have never experienced that before; and I’ve missed out!  Experiencing her joy, her excitement, her faith and her trust in God has been wonderful – and it has rejuvenated my spirit.  She saw immediately that our calling, as Christians, is to introduce others to Christ, that they too might be saved.  How silly and selfish of me to miss this crucial aspect of Christian living – actively seeking the opportunity to introduce Christ to others!

Even more recently I have realized another aspect of Christianity – why I never saw what was right before me, I don’t know – Paul writes about it, Christ spoke about it, the Bible is all about it – and it finally dawned on me!  Hallelujah!   Didn’t Jesus plainly say, “Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven.”  (Matt 6:20) and “Seek ye first the kingdom of God” (Matt 6:33, Luke 12:31)?  How do I, after confessing such a lapse in my understanding, hope to shed light on such basic concepts?

I have to write about this.  It came forcefully to me last week, was reinforced in my men’s group study last Sunday morning, and continued to beat me about the head and shoulders as I began to read “True Spirituality” by Francis Schaeffer (recommended by my friend and pastor, Tom Sanderbrink at Lebanon Calvary Chapel).  In his book, Schaeffer talks about the very things I “discovered” last week!  What assurance, what confirmation! (He also writes about some things that might change my current understanding about some other things – I am right in the middle of that part now – I’ll keep you posted.)

Here is the form it came to me:  Salvation is the thing, it is the most important, but it is NOT the only thing – it is the threshold to heaven. There’s more – MUCH more.  We don’t want to just make the threshold – at least I don’t – we want to enjoy the fullness of heaven to the extent of our capacity…and we will.  But Christ has told us how to increase our capacity: Lay up treasure in heaven.

Here is how Schaeffer describes it:  We can say birth is the single most important event in our lives, inasmuch as birth precludes any other event or aspect of our lives – just like salvation, or our rebirth.  But once the event is past, other things become of much greater importance: Food, clothing, shelter as basics, and then the greater aspects of “living a good life” whatever they might be, in a natural sense.  Once we are saved, God calls us to serve Him, to be the agents of His will and His kingdom here on earth.  To be rejected by society, to die to self, our ambition, our hopes, our plans and be risen in Christ, with His mind, His ambitions, His plans – and thereby share in His rejection, crucifixion and resurrection, as He instructs us (Matt 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Matt 10, 38-39).

I saw, in this new (to me) line of thinking, that God has invited us on an adventure, a  treasure hunt, if you will, and I have spent many days saying, “I’m born, I’m alive, I don’t need to find any treasures”.  Who of us would actually say that in our natural life?

 Suppose someone came to us and convincingly explained that they could and would make us wealthy beyond our imaginings, if we did what they told us to do, not necessarily easy things, but necessary things.  Each day we followed their directions, we would find and bank stupendous treasure.  To the extent we followed those instructions, our bank account would increase by much or by little.  Given the honesty of our guide, our bank account would be a direct declaration of our confidence in his claims, wouldn’t it?

Does God lie?  Do we trust His guidance?  What does our heavenly bank account look like?  How great is our capacity to enjoy God’s eternal presence?  How much of our joy is measured by the eternal standard?  How much of our joy is dependant upon our earthly circumstance?  How much do we trust God’s word?

There is much to do.  Take these hands and these feet and this mind and this body and do Your work.  I believe in Your love for me and trust that You will guide me to glory and riches and joy beyond my ability to comprehend.

The perfect solution to a politically created problem.

Posted on by
1

First we must agree that illegal immigration is illegal.  We must also agree that a fundamental responsibility of the federal government is control of its own borders.  Without such agreement you are arguing something other than what is good and right for the United States of America, and if what is good and right for the United States is not your intention, then we have nothing to talk about regarding this topic, and you are excused.

So, the first order of business is to secure the borders – and no, that imperative does not require “comprehensive immigration reform” to implement.  All that is required is the will to secure the borders.  Fence, virtual fence, increased Border Patrol, National Guard, military forces, moats and alligators – I don’t really care.  Use them all, and use them with purpose and intent. 

If you were a husband and a father, and there were people creeping your house every night, raiding your fridge, taking your cash and sometimes sneaking drugs to your kids, how long would it take you to figure out a way to stop these guys? Would you try to figure out a comprehensive plan for them to have permanent, legal access to your home and a voice in your household decisions before you tried to stop them?  I doubt it!   Your first duty to your family would be to stop the intrusion.  Failing that, your family is morally entitled to leave you to wallow in your own abject incompetence in failing to perform your most basic duty to them. 

If you invited someone to visit your home for a specific period of time, and that person ignored the agreed term of the visit and continued to stay and behave as one of the family to the detriment of your true family – you would be failing your basic responsibility once again if you did not expel them from your home.

 In either of these situations, could you reasonably expect your wife and children to have any patience with your continued whining about the “bigger picture”, the difficulties of locking the doors and securing the windows, how tough it is to locate the unwanted guest, how useful the guest has been in cleaning the home and washing the dishes or how concerned you are about the future and family of these intruders?  Of course not!

We often hear that the physical border is not the whole problem and of course it isn’t, but acknowledging that does not excuse inaction.  Back to the family analogy – if you had nightly intruders AND a guest who has overstayed her welcome, would your wife accept your lack of action regarding the intruders because, as you continue to point out, the intruders are not the only problem, and stopping the intruders will do nothing to get rid of the unwanted guest? Certainly not!    

Suppose many, or even all, of the home invaders are truly good people with sad stories, would you then be excused should you endanger the health and wellbeing of your family because of your sympathy for their plight?  Not in the least!

At this point, let us clean up our terminology: What do you call someone who comes, uninvited, into your home and helps themselves to what you have provided for your family?  I know some who would call them a brother-in-law (I wouldn’t, I have great brothers-in-law), but none of us would call them uninvited guests, unofficial family members or accidental residents.  You would call them deadbeats, crooks, trespassers, thieves, robbers and worse.  In the national conversation we should call them foreign invaders – which they are.

I hope these analogies have helped clear your view of the politicians and pundits who make excuses for the government shirking its most basic duty – securing the national borders against invasion; and a duty that is closely akin to the first – keeping track of our foreign visitors and insisting that they leave when they said they would.

I’m not going to dwell overmuch on exactly how to secure our borders and monitor our guests, but I will make this point:  The technology exists today to allow any business to secure their buildings and property against almost all intruders, and to know if a visitor left at the appointed time or if they are still on the premises.  It can be done.  NOTE:  The impossibility of securing against all intruders does not excuse a refusal to secure against most of them.

Once the borders are secure, we can talk about what to do with the foreign invaders currently within our borders.  Oh yes!  It is impossible to deport them all!  Who’s going to do it?  How will it be done?  All of the red herrings are dragged across the logical path.   Let me lay out a simple, effective and just plan, keeping in mind that simply granting “a path to citizenship” spits in the collective eye of everyone who took, or is taking, the time and effort to play by the rules.  Who would you rather have in your home, the person who comes at the appointed time for the agreed purpose, following the established protocol, or the one you find, unexpectedly, sitting in your Barcolounger watching your Sony big-screen, eating your Cheetos and drinking your Henry’s?

On the other hand, many worthwhile businesses would be unable to continue if every illegal were suddenly deported.  So here is my plan…

First, we secure the borders – I cannot emphasize this enough, because without that we are simply hauling hay for the “howdys”.

Second, we insist that everyone within our borders have proof of legal standing – birth certificate, green card, naturalization papers, visa, etc.  Those without such proof will be given a short grace period, say three months, to register their illegal status and establish a schedule for authorized re-entry (these schedules could be arranged so that a business did not lose its entire workforce at one time).  After the grace period, anyone discovered, by whatever means, without proof of legal standing or proof of registration of illegal status (with a scheduled re-entry date sometime in the future) will be deported immediately – and upon such deportation will not be allowed back into the United States for ANY reason.  If their baby daughter will die without their kidney donation…they’d better find a way to donate that kidney from outside the US borders.  If their sainted mother is on her deathbed and begs to see her son one last time, he’d better appear to her in a vision, because he’s not entering the country to see her.  We MUST have the will to see this through – keeping in mind, THEY made their choices and they are reaping the fruit of those choices.

Third, once registered and scheduled for authorized re-entry, the invader has a choice – do they wish to become a US citizen or not?  If they wish to become a US citizen, they get in line with everybody else PERIOD and their former invader status can be used against their petition for citizenship.  If they don’t wish to become a citizen, that decision is permanent and final.  Under no circumstances will they ever be allowed to vote or receive public aid, of any kind, including Social Security – although they will be required to pay all taxes and withholdings along with everybody else.  (A long term visitor in your home can expect to participate in household duties and share in household expenses, but they shouldn’t expect to inherit anything upon your death).  Should a person choose noncitizen status, they will return to their country of citizenship for expedited processing for temporary resident status, allowing the United States to check their backgrounds and deny re-entry to drug dealers, gang bangers, rapists, murderers, thieves and other unsavory characters.  Their temporary status allows them to stay only as long as they are legally and gainfully employed.  Children born to temporary residents do not receive automatic citizenship – they are treated just like any other foreign national when they reach the age of majority.  Any legal, alien resident who commits a felony or certain, specified, misdemeanors will be deported immediately upon conviction, with no obligation on the citizens to provide transportation of person or property or any other assistance to the families of the deported alien.  Said families must either meet all requirements of legal residency or leave.

Finally, any entity (i.e. city, state, church, business, individual or institution), found to be knowingly harboring or shielding foreign invaders or assisting same in fraudulent voting activity will lose all rights of citizenship.  In cases of nonpersonal entities, the principals of the involved entity as well as any individuals directly involved in such activity will forfeit their rights of citizenship.  

This last may cause a large uproar among certain groups of people.  When it does, we need to ask ourselves what would motivate someone to encourage, foster and assist a foreign invader.  Once we acknowledge the answer to this question we will clearly see that disenfranchisement is both a just and a benevolent response.

All accepted avenues for petition for legal residence, family, political/religious asylum, etc. will remain open – except for those who are deported for felony activity or failure to register their illegal status. 

For those of us who are Christians, our first concern must always be the salvation of souls.  Obviously, soul salvation is not dependant upon one’s country of residence.  We must then also concern ourselves with the wellbeing of the less fortunate.  While it is true that, in a natural sense, being born or otherwise legally residing in the United States of America is rare, good fortune, we are not required by God to encourage circumvention of the law or to do so ourselves in our solicitude towards others.  We may still work diligently to assist legal immigration, to help improve conditions in their homeland (which I consider to be the preferred option, since it plants a new seed of native Christians in a needy place) or to otherwise contribute to their health and happiness.  Our Christian faith in no way requires us to put aside good sense regarding this problem, any more than it requires us to allow the needy to invade our homes and threaten the safety and security of our families.

OK, so how does it look without the Fly?

Posted on by
Reply

This is a look at game by game stats for 2011, extracting and comparing the fly sweep plays, much as I did Quizz’s impact in the previous chart.  I assumed each rushing attempt recorded by a WR was a fly sweep or similar.  This may not be entirely accurate – there might be a couple of backwards passes that would count as a rushing play – but it’s pretty close, and it takes the WR factor out of the equation and looks strictly at the tailback-running-the-ball aspect of the game.  One thing this does not factor, and it would be an interesting thing to look at, is the number of draws and delays that we ran, and their result.  I hate those plays.  I think they yield next to nothing and I wish we would run them FAAAAAAR less often – but that is just an impression, not a studied conclusion.

Here is my revised assessment – I could only find two games that I can claim, with assurance, we should have won with a more predominant rushing attack.  Sac State, obviously – the final numbers scream the question, “What were you thinking in the first half?” – and Arizona State.

The Sac State horse has been beaten far beyond death, so I’m going to look more closely at ASU:

11 true rushing attempts, 9 excluding the Fly Sweep.

5.6 YPC and 1 TD….AND WE ONLY RAN 9 TIMES!!!!! 

There is no way anyone can begin to claim that the running game was not working!  5.6 YPC is working! The Fly Sweep was working also, but we only ran it twice.  That game, with a balanced attack looks like a sure win to me.

So my revised analysis is this – if we ran the ball more, we tally 2 more wins this season and we end with a 5-7 record, which isn’t great, but it is a far cry better than 3-9.

Two other games I want to point out – Utah, with only 15 carries by the tailback.  The YPC are slightly under 3, but I argue that 15 times for 20% of the plays is not a running game, and not a real test.  I think it barely possible that we pull that one out by being a bit more run persistent.  The other game, surprisingly enough is the Toilet Seats – we had 3.5 YPC, but only tried it 11 times, not counting the Fly.  Again, I think the run merited a bit more usage in that game; almost certainly not enough to pull out the win, but I think we would have done much better if we had run more..

I thought the Fly question posed in response to my last look at the stats merited a closer look.  Having looked, I’m not so sure about 3 more wins, but I still think running more definitely garners 2 more wins, and probably 1 more, just by virtue of the “the more you do it the better you get” factor.

Sac State

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

43

266

      

38

79

    
Sacks

2

8

              
Team Net

41

274

6.68

3

13.67

    

51.90%

  
Fly

2

3

1.50

0

 

2.53%

  
Team – F

39

271

6.95

3

13.00

 

49.37%

  
% Fly

5%

1%

  

   

 
                   
                   

Wisc

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

24

23

      

44

65

    
Sacks

3

25

              
Team Net

21

48

2.29

0

   

32.31%

  
Fly

2

6

3.00

0

 

3.08%

  
Team – F

19

42

2.21

0

 

29.23%

  
% Fly

10%

13%

  

   

 
                   
                   

UCLA

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

29

88

      

40

69

    
Sacks

0

0

              
Team Net

29

88

3.03

0

   

42.03%

  
Fly

6

33

5.50

0

 

8.70%

  
Team – F

23

55

2.39

0

 

33.33%

  
% Fly

21%

38%

  

   

 
                   
                   

ASU

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

14

47

      

69

80

    
Sacks

3

27

              
Team Net

11

74

6.73

1

11.00

    

13.75%

  
Fly

2

23

11.50

0

 

2.50%

  
Team – F

9

51

5.67

1

9.00

 

11.25%

  
% Fly

18%

31%

  

   

 
                   
                   

Ariz

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % W
Team Ttl

35

128

      

43

78

    
Sacks

0

0

              
Team Net

35

128

3.66

1

35.00

    

44.87%

  
Fly

4

21

5.25

0

 

5.13%

  
Team – F

31

107

3.45

1

31.00

 

39.74%

  
% Fly

11%

16%

  

   

 
                   
                   

BYU

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

23

59

      

44

66

    
Sacks

1

3

              
Team Net

22

62

2.82

2

11.00

    

33.33%

  
Fly

3

13

4.33

0

 

4.55%

  
Team – F

19

49

2.58

2

9.50

 

28.79%

  
% Fly

14%

21%

  

   

 
                   
                   

WSU

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % W
Team Ttl

34

175

      

34

68

    
Sacks

0

0

              
Team Net

34

175

5.15

1

34.00

    

50.00%

  
Fly

3

41

13.67

0

 

4.41%

  
Team – F

31

134

4.32

1

31.00

 

45.59%

  
% Fly

9%

23%

  

   

 
                   
                   

Utah

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

26

32

      

55

75

    
Sacks

6

56

              
Team Net

20

88

4.40

0

   

26.67%

  
Fly

5

45

9.00

0

 

6.67%

  
Team – F

15

43

2.87

0

 

20.00%

  
% Fly

25%

51%

  

   

 
                   
                   

Stan

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

17

33

      

33

47

    
Sacks

3

27

              
Team Net

14

60

4.29

1

14.00

    

29.79%

  
Fly

5

42

8.40

0

 

10.64%

  
Team – F

9

18

2.00

1

9.00

 

19.15%

  
% Fly

36%

70%

  

   

 
                   
                   

Cal

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

21

27

      

42

61

    
Sacks

2

19

              
Team Net

19

46

2.42

0

   

31.15%

  
Fly

4

28

7.00

0

 

6.56%

  
Team – F

15

18

1.20

0

 

24.59%

  
% Fly

21%

61%

  

   

 
                   
                   

UW

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % W
Team Ttl

31

145

      

38

68

    
Sacks

1

7

              
Team Net

30

152

5.07

3

10.00

    

44.12%

  
Fly

6

74

12.33

0

 

8.82%

  
Team – F

24

78

3.25

3

 

35.29%

  
% Fly

20%

49%

  

   

 
                   
                   

TS

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

21

16

      

50

65

    
Sacks

6

41

              
Team Net

15

57

3.80

0

   

23.08%

  
Fly

4

18

4.50

0

 

6.15%

  
Team – F

11

39

3.55

0

 

16.92%

  
% Fly

27%

32%

  

   

 
                   
                   

Total

 Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % L
Team Ttl

318

1039

      

530

821

    
Sacks

27

213

              
Team Net

291

1252

4.30

12

24.25

    

35.44%

  
Fly

46

347

7.54

0

 

5.60%

  
Team – F

245

905

3.69

12

 

29.84%

  
% Fly

16%

28%

  

   

 

 

 

Do these numbers mean anything?

Posted on by
3

Beaver rushing production during the Quizz era and post Quizz – a look at the numbers

I am a believer in the rushing game.  I believe that the Oregon State Beavers have chosen to decrease their rushing game in favor of the passing game.  I believe that this shift has been unwarranted and has been detrimental to the Beavers’ offensive production and to their winning percentage.  Much has been made of the efficacy of the offensive line and its relationship to the running game and, in consequence, to our Win/Loss record.  I believe that the downturn in winning percentage is due more to play calling (run vs. pass) than it is to offensive line play.  In order to verify or contradict my belief, I decided to take a look at the numbers.

Methodology:

I wanted to see the effect that Jaquizz Rodgers had on the team totals and averages, so I pulled his numbers to compare, and used his numbers to see how the team did rushing when he wasn’t carrying the ball.  This method does not take into account his effect on the overall outcome of a play when he is not carrying the ball (i.e. blocking or decoy), but it still gives us a clearer look at his effect on the stat line.

Team Net is team total rushes minus sacks and team total rushing yards plus sack yards.

CPG = Carries per Game

CPT = Carries per Touchdown

Rush % = Number of net rushing plays (total – sacks) divided by the total number of plays (rushing plays including sacks + official passing attempts)

  2008

 Games Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPG CPT Pass Att Ttl Plays Rush % Win %
Team Ttl

487

2055

448

935

69%
Sacks

21

163
Team Net

13

466

2218

4.76

21

35.85

22.19

49.84%
Quizz

11

259

1253

4.84

11

23.55

23.55
Team – Q

207

965

4.66

10

15.92

20.70
% Quizz

56%

56%

52%

66%

2009

 Games Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPG CPT   Ttl Plays Rush % Win %
Team Ttl

440

1818

478

918

62%
Sacks

29

229
Team Net

13

411

2047

4.98

26

31.62

15.81

44.77%
Quizz

13

273

1440

5.27

21

21.00

13.00
Team – Q

138

607

4.40

5

10.62

27.60
% Quizz

66%

70%

81%

2010

 Games Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPG CPT   Ttl Plays Rush % Win %
Team Ttl

384

1435

375

759

42%
Sacks

35

232
Team Net

12

349

1667

4.78

18

29.08

19.39

45.98%
Quizz

12

256

1184

4.63

14

21.33

18.29
Team – Q

93

483

5.19

4

7.75

23.25
% Quizz

73%

71%

78%

2011

 Games Rushes Yards YPC TDs CPG CPT   Ttl Plays Rush % Win %
Team Ttl

318

1039

503

821

25%
Sacks

27

213
Team Net

12

291

1252

4.30

14

24.25

20.79

35.44%

I concede that this is a small sample set, but since it somewhat supports my opinion I like it.  Exactly what do these numbers tell us?  Probably  not a lot – but as a former devoted reader of Bill James’ annual “Baseball Abstract” I like looking at the numbers in different ways.

 

Review these numbers at your leisure, I’m not exactly sure what to make of them except the confirmation of what we already know – Quizz was special.  But I enjoy looking at some of these numbers.  I’m not going to draw any large conclusions from them, but I’m going to discuss a couple of them in this post..

First, I want to point out that 2009 was a monster year for Quizz in terms of YPC (5.27) but also CPT (13).  I think there are two things that account for this:

1)      Maturity and experience – it was his second year as feature back.

2)      Offensive line – the line performed better than it did in 2010.

When we look at the larger picture we see that Carries per Game dropped dramatically over these four years, from almost 36 to barely over 24.  Another important number to note is the percentage of rushing plays to total plays, the Beavers went from a high of nearly 50% in 2008 to a low of 35.4% in 2011.  Two reasons given for the low percentage in ’11 are – no breakout running back and poor run blocking by the offensive line.

I refute both of these arguments as valid reasons for only running the ball one third of the time.  Yards per carry were 4.3 in 2011 – not earth shattering, but still within range of the three previous years.  4.3 is respectable, and that number tells me that we should have been running more.  Running with a 4.3 average controls the game more, gives your defense more rest and, I argue, wins more games.

4.3 says the running game in 2011, while not quite to the level of previous years, was not totally inept.  The difference between 4.3 YPC and 5 YPC over a game (assuming 30 carries per game) is 21 yards.  In the larger scheme of things, those 21 yards do not lose games, per se.  The timing of those yards is the difference maker – but I believe  there is a bigger difference maker: Almost always passing on first down seems to yield a long string of 3rd and longs.  If the running game can put you at 2nd and 5 or 2nd and 6, you  have a decent chance of making your mark.  Running 50% to 60% of the time on first down increases the effectiveness of your first down passing.  Running more sustains more drives, keeps the opponents defense on the field longer and your own off the field longer.  Defense being where fatigue most often becomes a factor, this is a BIG deal as the game wears on.

I think our reluctance to run came from two sources:  1) Our young running backs fumbled the ball at inopportune times, and discouraged the coaches from relying on them.  But QBs, especially young QBs, throw interceptions at inopportune times, and are rarely benched when it occurs.  2) A former QB as offensive coordinator will have a bias toward the pass – all QBs do, it’s their thing.

Finally, I want to say this:  Had we shown more confidence in our running game, and ran the ball 50% of the time (at the RIGHT time) the beneficial results would have shown in the late 3rd and the 4th quarters.  More running would have yielded better YPC numbers, because the early work would pay off as the defensive lines grew weary later in the game.  I think our disuse (and misuse – but that’s another rant) of the running game cost us a least 3 games – without question the Sac State game was lost due to a refusal to run the ball in the first half.  Would 3 more wins in 2011 meant anything to Beaver fans?

Fred Thompson RIP

Posted on by
2

I read last night about the untimely death of Fred Thompson..  A quick aside – we use the term “untimely” because we are caught by surprise, and we think it was “before his time” because we imagined (as he and his family did, no doubt) a bright but now unrealized future for him.  But isn’t our hope, really, that Fred was in God’s hands and in His plan, and he died according to the munificent design of a gracious, benevolent God?

I briefly met the young man a few weeks  ago, after the UW game.  My lasting impression was of an exhuberant young man, enjoying his time at Oregon State, excited about his future as a starting defensive tackle for the Beavers.  My heart warmed as I watched him, then briefly conversed about him with two good friends of mine, Howard Croom and Rodney Williams.  They both knew him, and both had positive comments about the young man, both as a person and as a future contributer to OSU football.

My first thought upon reading the sad news was for Fred’s family.  I then sent a text to Howard and Rod, both of whom had heard about the tragedy from their own family members close to the team and to Fred.  Rodney reminded me that, in addition to his family which I had remembered, Fred’s friends and his teammates were in need of our prayers. Thanks for that reminder Rod.

In one of those tap-on-the-shoulder twists of fate, when I received the news I was in the final editing of my previous post – a brief examination of death and eternity.

I will not spend any of this post commenting on Mr. Thompson’s qualities as a football player and his anticipated contributions to Beaver football.  His value far exceeded his athletic abilities, and the loss felt by his family and his friends is far beyond any loss a fan, such as myself, can begin to feel.  Had I not recently met this young man, had I not been so favorably impressed by his youthful exhuberant, yet properly respectful demeanor, I would not have been moved to make this post.  I met him, I was impressed by him, I looked forward to watching him grow and mature in character and capabilites, and I looked forward to becoming acquainted, in some small measure, with this young man.  That won’t happen.  God has different plans.

Isaiah 55:9 – “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

May God’s everlasting peace comfort the family, the friends, and the teammates of Fred Thompson in this time of immense loss and sorrow.

And after death, the judgement

Posted on by
1

I mentioned in my earlier post that my friend, Trisha, asked me a question about death:  Do we go immediately to heaven (into God’s timeless, boundless presence) when we die?

Two seemingly contradictory passages came immediately to my mind: Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise” Luke 23:43 KJV and I Thess 4:16 and 17 KJV, “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord”

In the first, Jesus implies that we will immediately enjoy the presence of God upon our death.  In the second, the implication seems to be that those who are dead will rise to meet Him upon His return, and will be joined by those still living at that time.  Which is it?  Is it important?  It is an important question, in my mind, because a babe in the Lord asked it of me.  So I tried to find as serious and complete an answer as I possibly could.

A pastor friend of mine from years back – my high school years, in fact – Pastor Wayne, once presented the idea to me that “Paradise” was not exactly what we commonly perceive it to be.  To this day, I don’t know if he was expressing his personal belief, or simply challenging mine (he did that from time to time), but he ventured the idea that between death and resurrection Christ descended to hell (or some variant thereof).  This concept is part of certain renditions of the Apostle’s Creed - and it is discussed here.

The above link also brings into remembrance another significant passage: The story of the rich man and Lazarus. Luke 16:19 – 31  Note a few things from this story – Lazarus rested in  the bosom of Abraham, but the rich man was tormented in hell; and between the two there was an uncrossable gulf.  Also, the rich man’s brothers were still living, he wanted them to be warned in order that they could avoid the fate he suffered.

I have always assumed that the “bosom of Abraham” was an euphemism for heaven, or the presence of God.  Apparently this is not universally accepted as true.  According to the previously linked discussion of Christ’s death to resurrection period, there is a line of theological thought that distinguishes between Paradise and Heaven.  Paradise being a waystation for the faithful between death and the Day of Judgement.  However, this familiar verse implies diifferently (at least to me it does):  “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” Heb 9:27 KJV.  What I read is a judgement following immediately upon death, with no intervening period of time, or “paradise”.

So what are we to make of all this?  My first thought, and I often take some small bit of consolation in this thought, is of the difficulty, futility even, of trying to fully understand eternal, infinite existance from our finite perspective.  However, we know from mathematics that the human mind is able to conceive, consider, contemplate and calculate the concept of infinity.  While we may not grasp its entirety, we are able to grapple with its broad abstractions.

So finally, here is the answer I received, and passed on to Trisha:  Upon death, we pass from time into eternity.  To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we slip the surly bonds of time, and touch the face of God.  As we do so, time ceases to have meaning and existance to have bounds.  We can therefore, in that instant, that twinkling of an eye, be transported to the Rapture, to join Christ and all His Church in the sky, to stand before thee Judgement Seat and hear our name called from the Lamb’s Book of Life as covered, forgiven sanctified and justified by blood, to be directed to the right hand of God, there to abide all eternity.  In my humble opinion, to Trisha’s question, including the unverbalized portion of it, “When we die, do we go directly to Heaven, or is the day of Rapture the moment we join Christ?” – the answer is yes.