All Activity

No surprise that Tony Petitti's opening statement today mirrored his interview with Yahoo Sports that NJ Duck was good enough to post. I missed a call from Brother Charles, who left a message questioning, in particular, why fans would support PO play-in games when their team could have already secured one of The B1G's four automatic PO qualifying bids. Would fans support a system where a team could play the same conference opponent four times in a season? Both are excellent questions that I will try to answer. First, some context. College football (CFB) has seen more change in the last five years than in the prior 100 CFB seasons. The biggest change to the 'student-amateur-athlete' paradigm came recently when the House settlement was approved, with schools now able to pay athletes directly. The cap on direct revenue sharing in year one post-settlement is $20.5 million. OBD is blessed to be one of the very few schools to have an athletic department in the black. The majority of athletic departments, if they were stand-alone businesses, would be functionally insolvent. So, the most pressing question for college athletic departments is 'how do we bring in more dough?' In theory, the B1G's 4-4-2-2-1-3 16-team PO format (B1G format) would provide three additional sources of football revenue. The media, in this case Disney/ESPN, will pay more for a 16-team PO inventory than for the current 12-team inventory. With AQs in place, Petitti believes schools will schedule more challenging out-of-conference games, which in turn would mean more media income. No doubt a Football Challenge between the B1G and the SEC would generate significant revenue. Teams would not be penalized for scheduling and losing games such as Texas vs. Ohio State, Oklahoma vs. Michigan, and Alabama vs. Wisconsin, scheduled in 2025. Play-in games would be decided only on in-conference game results. Rivalry games would be played in the penultimate game of the regular season. In my earlier example of what the play-in games would have been in 2024, I erred in using 12-game regular-season records and not the standings after the 8th conference games were played. The conference schedules in 2024, after eight conference games were played, would have had No.1 Oregon vs. No. 2 Penn State, with both teams automatically qualifying for the PO regardless of the score of the Conference Championship game. The first-place and second-place teams would be in the PO. The champ game result could affect seeding but not PO participation. No. 6 Iowa would have played No. 3 Indiana. No. 5 Illinois would have played No. 4 Ohio State. The winner of these two games would advance to the PO. These three games would not have included a rematch. It's possible but unlikely that teams would play one another three let alone four times. The PO committee would determine the PO seeding, but the B1G would decide on the four AQ teams and their B1G seeding. This would be the case for the other three power conferences. The PO committee would not be able to change the order in which B1G teams were seeded by the conference, but of course, could change where teams are seeded one through sixteen. Three impactful flex-scheduled games played on the final week of the regular season would generate far more dollars than one championship game played a week after the conclusion of the regular season. Four teams would be in the mix for the final two AQ PO spots. In addition to the increased media revenue, play-in games would help level the in-conference scheduling in a given season. In 2025, a sixth-place Wisconsin, with the most difficult conference schedule, would have a shot at the PO. Nebraska and OBD's relatively easy 2025 conference schedules will be more difficult down the road. Not sold? I get it! A 12-team PO in 2025-26, this time with teams seeded as ranked by the committee, is just as likely as expanding the field to 14 or 16 teams. Petitti, in his opening remarks today, made it clear that a 16-team 5-11 format is not going to happen unless all of the Power conferences play nine conference games.

We got a transfer pitcher who will be a senior from George Fox; Ryder Edward's ERA in 2025 was 2.29, and in 2024 it was 1.41!

And we know that he is pitching for the Ducks for certain!

Whoa! Look where this player is ranked!

This is much more than I wanted to put in the usual Oregon Baseball thread, so let's get it going. First, we have not lost much leaving via the portal, but we did lose Cole Stokes and Santiago Garcia. Although Garcia was highly inconsistent...when he was on--he was tough and had four saves for us. Thus I believe his upside could have been realized by the new pitching coach, but alas...he left before the coach got here. But as for Stokes....I wish him well, but he lost his confidence in games way-too-often. Heck, he choked two game losses to Portland in 2024, and 2025, so I think we can do better than that. First of all--Oregon had some luck this time versus the MLB Draft, as usually our best HS players verballed to Oregon--get drafted high and sign with a professional team. But look below! I will be adding to this thread over the next couple of hours, so keep checking back!

Riley’s lack of CEO-type leadership gifts and skills didn’t surface in Norman where he was shored-up by a focus and faith in Sooner football that never seems to waiver. In LA, those shortcomings are all too apparent.

Tony just needs to sit on his hands, do nothing, and keep the current format. With the skewed rankings and the 8 game schedule, it will be the SEC that is missing out on the extra playoff spots. The pressure will mount eventually.

“Telling a wealthy person who owns a business that they can’t pay a student-athlete $25,000 for advertising because some other third party tells him that he’s overpaying and the student-athlete is only worth $10,000, you know, that just doesn’t feel appropriate to me, personally.” That's what I've been saying too, plus part of the "review" is supposed to be based on "market." So, a kid considering UW is told a car dealer in Seattle will be allowed to pay him $50K, but one in Pullman can only pay $10K based on "market?" How is that going to work for USC's recruiting vs the same kid considering Fresno State?

This article makes me wonder what Division Street is doing. https://www.wsj.com/sports/college-sports-booster-collectives-8941202e?st=GgQgJ7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

If the Trojans have a tough game in Lincoln, they aren't ready to rumble.

Ohio State-Oregon is the hottest recruiting rivalry in the Big Ten In college football, rivalries between top programs often extend beyond the field and into recruiting. These intense battles for top prospects directly influence the direction of programs and shape future conference standings. This week Rivals is exploring the hottest recruiting rivalries in major college football. Today we look at the Big Ten. Ohio State Buckeyes vs. Oregon Ducks Notable head-to-heads: Dillon Thieneman (2025 transfer), Faheem Delane (2025), Nate Roberts (2025), Na’eem Offord (2025), Trey McNutt (2025), Dorian Brew (2025), Chris Henry (2026), Kayden Dixon-Wyatt (2026), Jamier Brown (2027) Ohio State-Oregon is the hottest recruiting rivalry in the Big Ten

Oregon has made a late-cycle addition with international big man Ege Demir

Until I see a Riley led U$C team that doesn't bumble, stumble, fumble, crumble and get humbled, I will be hard pressed to believe they can rumble.

Josh Pate Joins Dirt & Sprague From Big Ten Media Days In Las Vegas

USC lost a TON of experienced players to the portal, (Our Beloved Ducks have two of them) and at crucial moments--that lack of experience will hurt them in 2025, IMHO. He is their Mark Helfrich; a great OC and QB Coach, but he is not a leader...

Their toughest games this season are in South Bend, Lincoln and Eugene. If they can win one of those and beat Michigan at home, they could probably be a playoff team. They have a lot of talent, but their success will depend heavily on the play of their QB Maiava. I think OBD are in the same boat with two pretty difficult away games (PSU, Iowa) and a new QB and OL.

The next headline should be that because of USC’s new football valuation inflating values in South Central LA, the area has become a hot bed for crime and homeless issues. Oh wait, that isn’t anything new.

LOL......USC right now is like a helium filled balloon all set to explode.......unfortunately it has a Lincoln Riley anchor tied to it. The Riley anchor is historically one of the most dense, heavy and deceptive anchors ever created in college football. So.....other programs will continue to enjoy a 10 point per game handicap advantage for at least another year or two or three until the folks with the wallets figure out they have been robbed....again. Fool me once shame on you....fool me twice shame on me.

Thanks, NJ, for posting Tony Petitti's thoughts on the future PO format. Tony is being skewered for his 'radical' format, but IMO, he makes perfect sense. Also, he is not opposed to, for example, a 5-11 format if the Power 4 conferences all play nine conference games—an entirely reasonable condition. In the NFL, every team plays 17 conference games; half of the league does not play a USFL opponent in the penultimate week of the regular season. This is the case for NFL teams currently playing in a weaker division, as well as the teams playing in the toughest division. In 2025, one SEC team, Florida, plays 11 Power 4 opponents. Two SEC teams, Alabama and South Carolina, play 10 P4 teams. 13 B1G teams play 10 P4 opponents. At least the 16-team SEC has title success to support its staying at eight, the 17-team ACC has Clemson in the PO era, and that's it. I know that many on the OBD Forum do not like the idea of PO play-in games. Allow me to explain why I think play-in games make sense. 1st - Teams in 1st and second place, the penultimate week of the regular season, are in the PO no matter the winner of the game in the flex-scheduled final game of the regular season, the conference champ game. The winners of six versus three and five versus four receive the other two automatic PO bids. 2nd - Using the play-in flex-scheduled format allows the conference championship game to be played a week earlier, which moves the first round of the PO up a week, meaning fewer games going against NFL competition. 3rd - Mega-conference schedules are far from equal. Compare Florida's schedule in 2025 with that of Missouri. Compare Wisconsin's schedule to OBD's schedule. Teams competing for the same title do not face the same gauntlet of competition. In 2025, OBD plays two teams, Penn State and Indiana, ranked in the preseason top 25. Two of the four conference road games in 2025 are against Northwestern and Rutgers. In 2027, OBD plays at Michigan, Nebraska, and UW, and plays Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa in Autzen. In 2027, a 4th-place Oregon could be 9-3 through 11 games, but better than an OBD team that could finish with two or fewer losses in 2025. 4th - Whether I like it or not, today, money matters more in college athletics than ever before. As a result of revenue sharing with athletes, we've witnessed schools dropping sports and cutting athletic department staff. (I acknowledge that this is also the result of poor management of athletic departments.) Three impactful games in the final week of the regular season, one for seeding purposes and two for PO participation, will bring in more money than a standalone conference champion game. Rivalry games would be played in the 11th game. In 2024, we would have seen 6 Iowa at 3 Penn State, 5 Illinois at 4 Ohio State, and 2 Indiana at 1 Oregon. There would be rematches in a given season, but not in 2024. These three games would draw multi-millions of viewers. 5th - I believe Tony Petitti is correct that with automatic qualifiers, we would see better out-of-conference games. The B1G/SEC (Show Me the Money) Football Challenge could come to fruition with fans watching Oklahoma and Texas in Autzen instead of Oklahoma State and Baylor. 6th - Paying no attention to history, which seems to be the norm these days, allows for seeing Petitti's AQ PO format proposal being 'radical.' If you go back to 1998, the first season with a BCS 'One True Champion', and use the final regular season rankings through the 2024 season, the B1G and the SEC would have placed four teams each in a 16-team PO field in almost every season. Why leave PO participation to a committee whose processes are opaque and last season ranked a G5 team the ninth best in the nation. I agree with Tony Petitti, if the B1G and the SEC cannot agree on a revised format, stay at 12 teams. If three-loss SEC teams are not included in the field, and millions more dollars are not generated by expanding the field, that's on Greg Sankey. The B1G is the undisputed No. 1 bottom-line conference, and staying with 12 teams will not alter this fact.

I have been very pleasantly surprised to see the Rivals recruiting database being used for research and reference purposes over their own On3 recruiting analysis thus far at the local On3 site, ScoopDuck.com. I noted how On3 dedicated quite a bit to create their own recruiting rankings and analysis over the years, but I considered Rivals to still be the best as it was the most difficult to qualify, they are consistent, and their accurate data goes back 25 years for valid comparisons. So to see Rivals data being featured at the moment? A good sign for me... An example is looking at the 2026 team recruiting rankings of which Our Beloved Ducks reside at No. 7 at the moment. They have a category for "Average Rating," (the third one from the left) and you see that Oregon's is the highest; while our total number of recruits are below everyone else's at this juncture, we have the best quality in the nation! I read from a link provided by our wonderful Duck News Hunters that a D-lineman, Deuce Geralds, is deciding soon and I wondered what his Rivals ranking was? In On3 articles, they will have a link that shows a player's rankings by 24/7 Sports, On3, Rivals, and ESPN. I am always checking for the Rivals ranking, as again--it has been the most reliable over the 27 years I've been following recruiting. I see right here that when I go to player research and put in his name? This page right here pops up, and it is his Rivals ranking! He is a Rivals 4-Star for certain, and again--I am delighted that they are using the Rivals team for recruiting research and database thus far. Want to check Recruiting rankings, players, etc. on your own? You can without a subscription to On3! Go right here, (Save it!) and then click on the drop-down menu you see red arrow below pointing to, and for team rankings, click on the blue arrow, and for player research--the yellow arrow. Cool! Look at all the information you get from this free Our Beloved Ducks forum! As one UO professor said years ago as he held up his arms and looked skyward...."all of this for the price of tuition."

And Memphis ain't exactly beating the doors down to associate with the Pac. Yesterday's news was that they were willing to part with Big Dollars to buy their way into the Big12. What are they offering the Pac? Coupons for one free dinner at the Cozy Corner BBQ? https://cozycornerbbq.com/

According to this article, USC should be a power, the CFP, whatever format, should be a part of USC's schedule. But that's always been the case, hasn't it? USC valued at $1.4 billion as Trojans tap into Big Ten money and L.A. market | Sporting News

Hey SEC, wassssupp? You've got VCR's, the B1G is streaming.

What's the answer to college football's playoff problem? Big Ten commish points at 'play-in games' for his rationale LAS VEGAS — A month ago, as he tuned into a College Football Playoff meeting through Zoom, Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti felt a wave of sudden enlightenment wash over him. As he watched CFP staff members share potential changes to the criteria and data used by the selection committee, as he witnessed mathematicians deliver ideas on adjustments, Petitti pulled away from the Zoom and had a thought. What the heck are we doing? “I found myself sitting there thinking that play-in games seem so rational as we look at folks talk about points and subtracting numbers and adding numbers. I’m thinking, ‘This is the rational system and the one where we play games is radical?’ “I admire the work they’re putting into it and all the stuff they’re talking about and adding and subtracting and listening to mathematicians and scheduling experts. But all of that is more valuable than two teams playing on the field? OK.” In an interview on Monday with Yahoo Sports from the site of this week’s Big Ten football media days, Petitti emphasized that his league’s position on a future playoff format remains unchanged — a position, he says, that is unlikely to change until the power conferences agree to play the same amount of conference games (nine) and until the selection process is rectified. Tony Petitti remains supportive of a playoff format that'd give 4 automatic bids to the Big Ten and SEC

Still blows my mind how BSU & SDSU came racing in like a couple of rabid dogs. This league clearly has no strategy. They will talk about geography ultimately whining while actively trying to add Memphis to the conference.