Bummer, PIG2 will squeeze for what they can, guess I’ll only see it if I drive down. No way am I paying a dime to get back on the P12 Network at this point.

Anyone else notice the “commissioner” slinking around during the trophy presentation last night? Didn’t really speak. Awkward and priceless.

Dante was magnificent!

Let’s not find out, but 22 win team that beat a 2 seed in mid-March at a neutral site seems like decent odds, in the conversation at least.

On 3/15/2024 at 6:18 PM, HDuck said:

Uh, this math can't be right?  Can it?

 

Heather Dinich

According to sources, Washington State and Oregon State are expecting to receive $360,000 each per year in the new CFP contract - 1/5 of the $1.8 million Group of 5 schools would make. Historically, they received between $6-7 million per school as members of the Pac-12.

 

and, reaction from Oregon State

 

https://twitter.com/johncanzanobft/status/1768770877955752109

This day keeps getting better! Eventually I’ll stop rooting for their complete failure, but not this day.

Wild, was fun listening on radio, hadn’t done that for a while.

Thanks, I depend on y’all for maximum Beavis carnage!

On 3/15/2024 at 11:19 AM, MicroBurst61 said:

Hell at this point in the season, I'll take any and ALL the Luck we can get!  Damn the Haters.  Go Ducks!

You seem conflicted! I wouldn’t bet on a different outcome, which I base on us having very few quality wins this season, not hate. That being said, sports can be insane.

 

SCO Ducks!

On 3/14/2024 at 9:21 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Our share is better than what we would’ve been in the PAC-12.

A lot of hypothetical. A full share (or more) of 15% could be more than half a share of an 18 team conference getting 29%.

 

I'm not arguing against the switch, just that in this case our share may also be less than 1%

 

Just want clarity before crowing over Beavis in case their share is larger than ours.

 

Is that each or combined? If it’s remotely close to 1% each it’s waaaay too much.

 

I also hesitate to ask, 18 teams in our new conference, we aren’t getting a full share, what exactly will our percentage be? 🧐

On 3/13/2024 at 11:29 AM, Jon Joseph said:

This is ESPN's Mark Schlbach's best guess. I agree with you, some of these rankings, Utah at No. 10 and AZ at No. 11 I just do not understand. I think he has too many B12 teams ranked and the ACC champ, FSU or Clemson ranked too low. Oklahoma with Frosh at QB and with its brutal schedule is, IMO, ranked too high. 

 

IMO USC notwithstanding a very difficult schedule made harder by playing LSU and Notre Dame should be ranked. I see SC being the 5th best team in the B1G, at least, next season. SC misses both OREGON and Ohio State and plays Penn State in LA. SC will arrive in Ann Arbor with a more talented roster than Michigan, a new and upgraded staff of D coaches, and a decent haul so far from the portal. If Moss can play close to how he played in the Holiday Bowl I think SC has a shot of playing in the B1G champ game. 

 

Great take.

Some fun B12 perspective: Utah, Arizona, Kansas, and KSU (all ranked) have a combined 9 4-star recruits for 2024. USC has 18.

What I really note from this list are some of the team rankings.
USC unranked? Inconceivable! NC State? KSU with a new QB? Louisville? Kansas?

 

I don’t believe any of this…but if true, Riley should be fired. Year 3 and the list of teams thought of more highly than USC on this list is absurd. Doesn’t take 10 years for a brand name to make it back these days.

On 3/12/2024 at 11:07 AM, Steven A said:

Can we please stop calling them the Pac - 2.  I think that is a disservice to our beloved Pacific 8, Pacific 10 and/or Pacific 12 Conference.

 

Perhaps Rat-Pac or Wac Pac would be better.

Or

PIG 2

MID 2

 

Solid options

And…I just read that the rodents (only) got $10m in additional state funding for athletic scholarships. 

On 3/11/2024 at 5:59 PM, DanLduck said:

I find it slightly humorous that coaches (and players) lose so much of their luster when they no longer wear yellow and green (or whatever other colors the Ducks are currently modeling).

 

The Chipper took a good offense and made it amazing. He made Dixon into a potential Heisman candidate (before injury) when Dixon was so unsure about football he played baseball the summer prior.

 

Between the CK offense, and the Fishduck website, football is not the same anywhere.

 

One of the reasons CK was so successful at Oregon, he had better players to work with.

He may have even better players at tOSU. 

 

They need a better run game, maybe now they'll have one. And even though good teams have caught up to the spread, playing at tempo is still tough for everyone. 

 

I think a happier Chip will make for a more productive Chip.

 

He doesn't have to score 40 per game in the B1G to win, just against the likes of Oregon.

 

I'm so glad we play them in Autzen. 

I'll always love CK for what he did here, but I want him to continue to go 0- Fer against us in Autzen. 

 

Sco Ducks!

I wanted Chip to go dominate the NFL and was rooting for him at UCLA as well. Given how few of our offensive players from his era really did much in the NFL, I would also argue that his schemes made good college players great at Oregon, which is a tribute to him. The pac south was pretty poor during most of his time at UCLA, he should have had enough talent once or twice to make some noise, and it didn’t really happen.

 

Not luster lost for me, just the fact he has not sustained any success since leaving us, which was quite a while ago now.

 

PS New Englanders are never happy 😅

 

Proof will be in the pudding, we’re all really guessing.

 

I personally think Chip caught lightning in a bottle at the UO and the moment has passed. I also think Day might be creating a bit of an echo chamber that won’t help tOSU evolve…but they do have a LOT of talent.

 

This will be a ton of fun to watch.

Lot of cart and horse here. 
 

If the rankings are going to be so stupid as to not heavily weigh SOS then guaranteed spots are a must.

 

If the ranking system isn’t going to be stupid and factors in SOS as a top consideration then go ahead and have a fully open field.

 

the same people that control the playoff format control the ranking system of who gets in, right? Perhaps the theory is that settling the criteria ahead of time means not having to sell the scenario of why FSU didn’t make the cut over and over again. The recent FSU (and Liberty for that matter) case is a prime example of how the public will still fall for 13-0 over all else.

On 3/10/2024 at 12:37 PM, Mudslide said:

Jabba, I agree with almost everything you said ... but with one exception.  Although he only played in 5 games, Bittle's stats exceeded Evans in almost every category.  Bittle also was a pretty fair 3-pt shooter (about tied with Couisnard) for a 7-footer.  I'd rather think that Bittle is legit and Evans is the project (in spite of his media hype).

 

For sure, if Dana's crew is going to make it to the Tourney next year, he needs to find or develop one or more 3-pt specialists.  It's mighty frustrating to watch these guys miss after miss open 3-pointers.  The Ducks could sure use a 40+ percentage guy.  And get an S&C team that finds a way to eliminate these multiple yearly injuries.

Agree, but Bittle is a supposed 5 star Junior that has stats on par with a true frosh. I’d love to see an Oregonian kick butt, but he really is “exhibit A” of how questionable the star system is.

Yep a bye isn’t nothing for sure.

 

I think we had our key pieces at guard in Shelstad and Couisnard, one was a frosh the  other a mega-senior that is extremely inconsistent and not an NBA prospect. Guard play is everything in college hoops and that combination is bubble at best unless you have really good NBA-type prospects at every other position. I don’t think any of the injured guys would have made us better from the 3-point line or made us tougher on D, and Bittle (project) would have landed Evans (legit) more bench time.
 

One injury that could have impacted things more is Cook, but total wildcard as a frosh.
 

I just think Dana hasn’t been successful at prioritizing good 3-point shooters, at one point before big Frank transferred to UW, we were slated to have four player that were at least within an inch of 7 feet, most of them with zero range. That’s not good modern hoops.

Thrilling game, let’s enjoy that aspect at least.

 

I’d call it “one mediocre team in a year the pac was terrible”. I know we have extensive injuries, but I don't think our record would be much better if healthy, I think we’d be on the bubble at best. Sadly we’ll never know.

So basically the year 1980 with a few tweaks? Sure.

 

If you’re going nuts, not having Maryland in the ACC is criminal. 

On 3/6/2024 at 2:31 PM, Duckster said:

Great stuff Mike. Some random thoughts: I agree that the most recent BIG/SEC playoff proposal was fair and generous given the dominance of those two conferences over the past 15 years, and the growing position of power they will hold going forward.

 

ACC and Big 12 need only to look at the demise of the Pac 12 to see where ego and hubris gets you. Take the deal fella's, it's the best you could hope for.

 

We're only at the beginning stages of the total restructure of CFB. The NIL and subsequent demise of the NCAA has changed everything. Until there are some agreed upon guidelines and overall governance installed its every man/school/conference for themselves. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

 

Some form off a future Super Conference, top 30 or top 40 is virtually inevitable. I like the concept of annual relegation/ promotion per the Premiership in English football, though don't know how it might be implemented. In that type format what happens to the 90 or so other DI programs that can't compete financially with the Supers but are currently supporting football? Multiple tiers? Dramatically scaled back funding? Program elimination? The resulting carnage will be enormous .

Lot of good points and agree with almost everything outside of the last paragraph, this isn’t European soccer, relegation will probably never happen. What could happen is a more formal division of the top current level. Top 64 (criteria might be impossible to agree to) become the highest level with 4 divisions of 16 regionally oriented teams. Those not in the top 64 set up something similar for schools that don’t care to, or are unable to pay their assistant pool $10M, etc.

I referenced apathy as being the worst possible outcome for women’s hoops previously…I have gone from not missing a single game to being unaware we had a game today. Probably time for a change.

Interesting stuff!

 

This may be pretty obvious, but I think it’s good to revisit the results of the last 10 years with a 4-team playoff.

 

Only 15 different schools appeared in the 4-team playoff.

 

It gets more consolidated when you realize only 6 different schools won the playoff, with 80% coming from the big2, SEC(6), B1G(2), and Clemson (2).

 

So the better question might be, “did they already ruin college football”. If ruined means “very few teams outside the big 2 winning the playoff”, that’s already been achieved.

 

I think every suggested expansion format will help on the variety of schools front.

On 3/5/2024 at 11:04 AM, Jon Joseph said:

In Your Face Wazzu!

 

Paul Finebaum rightly blasts ‘fake outrage’ to proposed CFP format

SATURDAYTRADITION.COM

---

Paul Finebaum went off when it comes to the outrage to a proposed CFP model that would award the SEC and Big Ten more automatic bids.

 

IMO, a justified duplicate post.

“I feel very strongly that they’re probably tired of loudmouthed presidents like the guy at Washington State who got in the way several years ago and stopped the progress of the 12-team Playoff,” Finebaum explained. “…And he’s still mouthing off, and he’s part of a league with 2 schools. My reaction is shut up, go find yourself into a league before you try to dictate policy at the CFP.”
 

Gold Jerry, gold.