David Marsh

I mean to be honest... The rivalry has value. And though contests with Ohio State may be fun, they would take about a hundred years before they had the same meaning as those we play against the Beavers. Rivalries give sports meaning. And oh how we LOVE to HATE our rivals and that hate can only manifest itself by being distilled for decades.

Could be hinting at the new indoor facility or something as "mundane" as that. Could have more meaning.

Colorado probably has the least amount of patience. They have had no success in the PAC since joining and they have all of the sudden become a prized institution to the big-12 and they feel they have a super star coach in football who will turn the whole thing around in a year. Utah has had success and the Arizona schools have had success and a history in the PAC. Not saying they won't be tempted or the next targets for the big-12 but I think they have a bit more patience than Colorado. Colorado's move to the PAC was an absolute failure for them. They became the doormat of the conference which is saying something considering they went from power 5 to power 5 whereas Utah went from G5 to P5 and has had success.

And Colorado may find themselves mediocre in their new-old conference. Sanders will probably move on in a few years regardless. But hey... Colorado may feel better. We'll have to wait and see if they'll make any more money... And that might take a while depending on how fast this usually glacial process takes.

Depends on what each team wants, needs, and what kind of expenses they are willing to take on.

I am thinking only of pac-12 survival here... So this just assumes that Oregon and Washington stay in board. The keys to holding the remaining members together will depend on a couple things. One being to try and reduce some travel burden on the eastern side of the conference. I am sure part of Colorado's problem is that they pay the most in travel costs being the farthest east. I think Colorado is also just unhappy that they are not relevant but that's their fault. So adding SMU would be a must, as they seem happy with the extra travel and want to join. Then adding Colorado State or Utah State or another school that is on the eastern side of the conference. Adding SDSU is still important and that doesn't change. Does the PAC take a page from the big-12 and try to expand more? Grabbing Nevada or UNLV or Fresno?

Again... Oregon has its own financial circumstances to take into consideration. They don't need the media payout to be as high because of their donor base. So whatever they choose I'm confident that it would be good for them. Even if fans cry out that we need B1G dollars which I don't think a partial share makes up for the losses that will come with travel expenses.

I'd be shocked if the big-12 has the money to pay them. But they have seemed to scrounge together some money to pay Colorado. So who knows.

Besides the Denver market. But agreed that Colorado hasn't been terribly good for the conference's brand. They've had one good football season since joining... Two if you invite pandemic season that was trending well. Colorado may want to be a bigger fish in a depleted pond. BYU isn't Oregon or Washington. I think the they are thinking they can be relevant again if they join the big-12. It's still a significant blow to the PAC but Colorado has also been on the eastern edge of the conference and I think they are also tired of the travel costs. Which probably doesn't bode well for the LA schools and their travel cost fatigue.

I read it... It says they are having continued conversations. They could also have the potential PAC media deal numbers or trying to get them to discuss their options. Colorado is the farthest east PAC team with the most travel time. I can see them wanting to look at some options. Also apparently Sanders wants in the big-12. But to be blunt it would be sad if the whole school did what the football coach wanted, especially when that coach hasn't coached a season for them yet.

I'm also sure Canzano is busy looking into this... So will wait and see. Ive seen some other tweets from the usual suspects that have been calling for the death of the PAC for the last year. I haven't seen any PAC people talking about this yet, so I'll wait and see.

So... All the travel of the B1G but half the paycheck. That sounds like a a big lose right there. Lol

And what has become clear is that maybe Oregon doesn't need the money. Keep in mind they turn a 12 mil profit last year. Would that added travel time, even with a bigger media check, net a greater profit, about the same, or less? That's the key number in all of this is the profit from the year.

I'd say Oregon and Stanford would be in a tough fight if this was 2006-2016 for who had the best runningbacks. But more recently... It's Oregon. Stanford has had some good ones but Oregon had several that managed to creep up the career boards for Oregon's all time rushers. Granted are they counting Travis Dye as a USC kid? Verdell was good but injuries turned out to be his undoing. I wish Freeman had more success at the NFL level. But looking at Oregon's current runningbacks... Oh they'll be running over other teams all year long.

I feel this is far more likely than Oregon headed to the B1G. I don't think the B1G has managed to get their current media deal to bed at this point as it is... So adding more teams seems absolutely silly. But maybe I'm wrong. My initial reaction to hearing USC and UCLA leaving was that Oregon needed to get to the B1G as soon as possible... My feels now are that the Ducks should remain in the PAC. Knowing that I rarely ever get what I want... It could be that Oregon is going to the B1G to make me annoyed and upset all at once? More likely a non-conference game. Again Ohio State isn't the only team in the B1G... If another one of these comes out with say Michigan or Wisconsin... Then I'll bite.

And the payouts for all schools would be... Probably around 30 mil. So what it is basically now for the PAC. That's why conference expansion has be precise.

More likely an announcement of future home and home things. This feels like a really weird way to illude to conference expansion. Ohio State isn't the only B1G team and the Ducks would have to join with a 2nd team. Also a whole lot of B1G members aren't thrilled about having to travel to LA still so convincing them to add more west coast games seems like a stretch.

UNLV or Fresno is far more likely.

I'm also pretty sure if they were to receive a pac invite they'd probably have to get rid of the blue field. I remember reading somewhere that many conferences have rules about fields that are any color other than green. I see BSU getting a "power 5" invite at some point... Just not to the PAC... They'd probably get the invite from the Big-12 at this point.

At the end of the day here the only way BSU gets considered for the pac-12 regardless of viewership is if they can get their academics in order. That is going to always be the biggest sticking point for university presidents involved in the decision making. I do think SDSU's brand will grow if they join the PAC much like how Utahsybrand grew. They will never take fans away from USC but they can certainly develop their own fanbase. I've heard from some people in San Diego that they don't default to USC fans because that's the closest team to them. Just like how as I live in Portland and I don't have an NFL team in my city I don't default to being a Seahawks fan because it's the closer team. Same way as people in Seattle when they lost the Sonics they didn't all of the sudden become Blazer fans because they were the closest team to them geographically. Sometimes a fan base doesn't develop because they don't have the opportunity that fits for them. Give SDSU five years (or basically one media cycle) and they will develop a fan base. I where near as.laege as USC's but they'll fill their stadium and become an asset. I don't see BSU having much growth potential. Sure the city is growing but creating a fan base can be a whole lot faster than growing a city.

Well what we can take away from recruiting battles over the past few years that yeah... Oregon won't get into a bidding war, at least not until the very end of the signing period. Oregon has shown signs of getting more aggressive with nil right before signing. Josh Connerly became a bit of a bidding war between Oregon and USC. Oregon won, by the sound of it, because they had a stronger relationship with Connerly and they were able to effectively match USC's bid which was previously above Oregon's. This was all done right before Connerly signed so the time frame was restricted.

These losses sting... But there are still quite a few in play. There are a couple of things to keep in mind right now. 1) Oregon needs a good showing this season. Making the playoff would be huge and could swing some momentum out way. The CFP invitees are announced before early signing day. Oregon doesn't really stop recruiting even when someone commits. 2) If NIL was an issue then Oregon's division Street will probably make some plays on some recruits down the stretch. No point getting into a bidding war in July. We'll have to see where things shake out in the end. But Georgia is a machine right now.

I know when I published this article I had a lot of disagreement. But I'll just put it out there again. This First-Year Coaching Rule Should Be Made Permanent FISHDUCK.COM There is a strange rule in College Football where a first-year head coach with a program has the ability to... I do feel that scholarships.should be honored. Though the nature of football these days is as such that coaches want and need to open up roster spots for players. Obviously if a player wants to hit the portal they lose their scholarship but if they don't want to portal and they want to stay they should have the opportunity to stay at their institution. To be it's all about choice. Choice for players to leave on their own free will. Choice for coaches to remove players from the team. And if removed (no choice in the matter) players can choose to stay and get their education.

I think so much of the shock if what Sanders did was that the bulk of this roster turned over before Spring. So the new coaching staff just decided to do a minimum evaluation of their roster talent before just gutting it. Granted... The transfer portal window for the window would have closed and they would have missed out on the bulk of this year's portal. Let's be real, the spring portal is a lot smaller than the winter portal. I think it's one ofany of the problems of the transfer portal. How can new coaches evalutate the talent they have and engage with the transfer portal and recruiting.

If I'm George K I think I'd have some very real conversations about this. I think for the upcoming B1G contract both LA schools probably have their OCC slates already filled. So it probably won't be an issue. Which means the question comes up as to whether to schedule them if they opt to remain in the B1G for a prolonged period of time.