Cacker Guy

Thank you, Mike and thank you Charles. I was quite uncomfortable about many of the comments I read here as well, and I appreciate you being sensitive about it and writing about it. I have not seen any of the Netflix documentary nor have I seen much about Coach Sanders, but what I have seen impresses me greatly. He appears to me to be FULL of substance, and to care deeply about his players. He is especially interested in their off the field success. I don't think he's coaching for publicity or money (he doesn't need it), but because he loves those kids and wants to help them. As Santa Rosa Duck noted, he is motivated by a higher calling. He brought terrific coaches to CU, and their on-the-field success so far is testimony to his coaching ability as well. I am also rooting for him -- but not this Saturday.

CU beating last year's #2 team. I love it!! They are for real! Coach Sanders is a very very good coach.

And turnovers and special teams play

I like it! Move UCLA to #5 and drop us to #6. A little extra motivation can't hurt!

Thank you, Charles, for maintaining the website and forum all these years. I have been a Duck fan since toddling around the backyard in Junction City in the late 50's. My parents moved to California just before I started kindergarten, and I've often had trouble getting information about my beloved Ducks. With no local media focusing on UO, I relied for a long time on GoDucks.com. When I finally stumbled upon your website I was so thrilled, and just devoured the articles. I have appreciated more and more the forum with decorum -- I can't stomach any other forums or websites because their rude and mean posts irritate me. So thank you for your efforts to keep this forum civil. It really is my primary source for information about the Ducks. I still love them dearly after over 60 years, and I'm glad I have a place to learn about them from informed and thoughtful people. I'll go back to lurking now, but I just wanted to say thanks. Good luck selling your house. That is a major project! Jim Johnson

Thanks for posting, bb. I am not familiar with McCollough, but his resume looks pretty legit. I believe Phil liked the Apple deal, because -- well, I was very intrigued by it. I think it might have worked out quite well in the long run. I still think we will look back at this as a very poor decision -- maybe even disastrous. I hope I'm wrong. But it's water under the bridge now, so on to the B1G,

As of tonight, it's the Chargers' stadium.

I think the PAC-4 could pick up SMU and maybe another AAC team (or three) like UTSA or Tulane or Rice for 2024 just to survive. Then they could add SDSU and whomever from the MWC in 2025 for a smaller exit fee. Chances are they may still get A5 status and an automatic playoff bid. As has been mentioned, that could look pretty good for the Beavs and the other PAC schools.

But it's a lot farther away.

The issue isn't with football. There are only four or five conference away games. Not a problem for football. In fact, they get to go to some awesome venues. Well, the equipment truck has to leave earlier maybe. The issue is with the other 20 sports. Softball has to travel to Maryland and Pennsylvania in early spring instead of Corvallis or the Bay Area or Arizona. Etc. etc.

Interesting article! Thanks for posting, Jeff!

I think you are right, Happy. The numbers just don't cry out that the B1G was a better deal financially -- at least for the duration of the current media deal. Plus didn't Colorado use the lack of linear partners as their reason for leaving?

I hope you are right, Jon. Maybe the B1G can hire you to consult on this?

Good for you, Charles!! Keep it up! I appreciate it. I'm surprised at how sad this has made me.

Plus, the argument that going to a weaker league is better for baseball and softball (and other sports such as track & field) is directly counter to the argument that going to the stronger B1G is better for football. Arguments for going to the B1G for football (except money) include better recruiting, better exposure, etc. Wouldn't that mean worse recruiting, worse exposure for minor sports if we are in a weaker league for them? Charles, I don't disagree with you. I agree we are all being pulled into this. I know that many of our diamond players came to UO because they wanted to play in the PAC. Will they still come?

From an article in Duckwire (I also saw these numbers somewhere else but I can't find it). Average viewers per week in 2022: Oregon 2.21 M Utah 1.16 M UW 1.15 M WSU 907 K Cal 857 K Stanford 846 K OSU 625 K Arizona 506 K ASU 314 K That adds to just under 8.6 M viewers per week. That doesn't mean 8.6 M would subscribe, but I would...

If the athletes survive the travel to Piscataway and East Lansing and Columbus, etc. ! Tweets I've seen from softball players are 100% negative on going to the B1G...

I agree, Jon, that this was the safer, more secure deal. I was hoping UO and UW would take a chance on the Apple deal for the sake of the minor sports, and preserving the PAC. And the whole regionality of college football. I admit my desires are more sentimental than practical and fiduciary. Somewhat akin to the Angels not trading Ohtani. Gutsy, but probably a bad move. Yes, this is what I meant! I admit under the conditions of a week ago, the B1G appeared to be a much better long term (10 years plus) option. Nevertheless, as an ex track (as well as football) athlete, it bothers me that these decisions are made solely for football. I wish that football conferences could be separate from the other sports to help preserve some regionality in the minor sports. But that is another can of worms.

I think 1.7 million subscribers is reasonable, which would have brought the PAC deal in almost $2M better than the B1G deal. I think I get why the presidents balked, but I wish they would have tried it. It is also reported that there was an opt out after 3 (or maybe 2) years.

This is what bothers me. I feel for all the athletes who play minor sports. I love following track & field, women's basketball and softball, and they will definitely suffer from the travel. I don't have cable and I prefer streaming but I'm probably unusual in my demographic (almost 70.) TV is probably better exposure for now, but I wonder what it will be like in 2 or 3 years...

Tandaian, for the next five years what I read from UW is that they will average $32/year. Starts at $30 M and increases $1 M per year. The Apple deal counteroffer was $25 M with incentives that would bring the amount to $28 M I think after the first quota is met. Plus an opt out after 3 years. So $30 M minus $28 M is $2 M. Yes, I'm assuming the first subscription bonus kicks in. Possibly wrongly. And I must agree that being in the B1G is almost undoubtedly more lucrative for the NEXT media deal cycle IF the current landscape remains similar. My point is that most are assuming the money difference between B1G and Apple is enormous, and I'm not sure that it would be. In addition, the difference is not a high percentage of the athletics budget. I believe the UO athletics budget is around $180 M (see fiscal year 2022 report). So the amount of money we get by joining the B1G is -- in my opinion -- not worth the extra travel, the hardship to student-athletes, the dissolution of a grand old conference and for many the demise much of what we like about college football. College football is obviously big money. But reducing revenue by 1 or 2% is doable. Just don't reupholster the seats in the jet. I'm sure it is better financially to join the B1G. But by how much? And what is the cost to athletics as a whole? I wanted UO to do something heroic, to put our fingers in the dike. But alas, most heroes meet an untimely demise anyhow...

Wrathis, I'm with you 100% on this. I think everyone panicked when the Apple deal had no linear component, so there would be insufficient national "exposure." Possibly true, but I'm not so sure the Apple deal was so terrible. I wish it would have been explored more. I think we were totally duped by Fox/ESPN. Half share?!! Are you kidding me? I hate it for every sport but football, and I'm not sure it will be good for football. In the final rankings last year we were sixth in of the 2024 B1G in football. That doesn't make the playoff in my opinion. And I don't think we will rise any higher. I just don't. I hope so but I fear it won't happen. Likely my sadness at this has destroyed my optimism. I wish our school would have had the guts to stand up to Fox / ESPN, give them the finger, and stay in the PAC and be at the forefront of the new technology. But our new president (who took office one month ago and came from the B1G) is not from the west and has no fealty to the PAC. Even if it cost us a couple million. We don't need another $2 million -- that's 1% of the athletics budget.

Thank you Santa Rosa Duck. Very good article!

Great post, Jemangi. I hope you are right! Go Ducks!