David Marsh

SILENTLY SURGING! Let them put Oregon back there... all the better when Oregon kicks all their butts and takes the conference! USC is a hype machine and always has been. They are almost always picked to win the conference and since the conference went to 12 teams they have only manged to do it ONCE. Oregon is coming for them but let those USC fans relish the idea of being conference champions because it isn't going to happen. Washington is certainly not going to be the No. 2 team. Can't wait for the season to start so we can see these Ducks prove just how good they are. It's also a pretty trendy pick to not pick Oregon as well based off a lot of these media polls.

I'd say this isn't something that should be done in front of the team. It actually makes it super awkward for everyone even whitnessing it. There could be a brief team meeting after the player is removed from the team where the coach goes over why this had to happen and explains why the rules are important so it turns into a learning opportunity rather than something dramatic and scandalous. I would also like to know what rules this kid broke and how did Sanders address those incidents? Did he call him out and punish him in front of the team or sit him down and talk about it? Also was there a team meeting going over team rules at the start of the season? Did Sanders explain the rational behind the team rules? My teacher side just crindges at this sort of thing. I leady schools Constitutional Law Team (there is a whole competition and complex questions and it's a cool thing) and every year I seem to have one student who never participates in team meetings (it's a class but also an after school program). So I have to have conversations with students about being present and basically team rules or expectations. I've had to kick a few kids off the team, I'd never do it in public. It's always a private conversation after a series of conversations.

That would be the worst thing for the conference. Right now I'm hoping for Oregon v Utah or perhaps even Oregon State (wouldn't that be something).or Washington (vomit). Utah has Oregon, Washington, OSU, USC and UCLA on the schedule. The California focuses scheduling is going to end because that is ridiculous how this currently protects those LA teams. Utah, Oregon, UW and OSU all get to run a real gau tlet right now with Utah getting it a bit worse because they have to play both LA teams. Everyone else on this list has to go through each other. USC gets to skip OSU this year and UCLA gets to skip Oregon and UW. Talk about convienant. Yes, I know scheduling is done often years in advance but I'll be happy to see this end. Especially since the championship game isn't bound to divisions anymore. But I'll throw out a bit of a long shot prediction... Oregon v Oregon state in the conference championship game. Oregon wins back to back against the beaves in the same season too. But for that to happen some crazy things will need to happen.

Utah has been a power in the Pac-12 no denying that... however, Utah hasn't been able to break through and win a NY6 game though they have been to the last two Rose Bowls. UW hasn't been any better with their NY6 trips (back when Petersen was there) and they came away with a couple losses. You know which team in the Pac that actually won a Rose Bowl recently? Oregon!

ESPN now has a report up... Source - Pac-12 media rights deal expected in 'near future' - ESPN WWW.ESPN.COM The Pac-12 will not announce a new media rights deal Friday, a source told ESPN, but the conference's patience "is about to pay... Nothing really in it that hasn't been said... but its another source.

Probably not... Oregon had had 4 presidents (including intern presidents) all be in office for the deal. I'm sure whoever takes over will be briefed and given marching orders.

I had a good laugh at some of the comments from that tweet. Some trolls think the deal is going to be worth 26 mil or less per school. That doesn't seem like a deal that would be accepted and does not match all the reporting from the more credible sources.

Streaming isn't new... But the players in streaming are opening up new opportunities. I've streamed games since roughly 2012 on a regular basis but typically I'm using Xfinity to do so. So it's using a streaming component to the cable I already have... Basically an alternative way to watch cable. Now watching through ESPN or FOX's apps instead of say the Xfinity app really wasn't any different because I still needed to log in using my Xfinity account (or any other providers account). What I find exciting personally about streaming (as I don't have cable) is there can be alternative ways for me to get games without having to pay for cable or narrowing someone's cable or dish account. I know you can use sling or FUBO but both of those piggyback off existing traditional media streams that are repackaged. The other thing is that I think part of why there is fear around going to streaming is if anyone has worked with these apps out there they can be a real pain in the butt to deal with. So having a streaming platform who is focused on streaming would be a better service. Outside of those convenance reasons, only speaking for myself here, streaming opens up new possibilities in terms of partnerships for the conference which can lead to more money and better start times. Getting in the door first can help build these relationships for the next contract (one after this one) when everyone is probably going to have something streaming. More and more people are moving away from trational media and making the move at the right time can capture a younger audience who makes the transition faster.

Great point how even though we get annoyed about those pac-12 after dark games constantly and how the east coast doesn't watch them which hurts our national perception. But... Those games are still watched by a lot of people on the west coast. A 7pm start time is kinda nice for home viewing... I've had a whole day to do things and then end my day with the ducks. Also... My one year old goes to bed around 7 so that is free time and time I can pay full attention.

And wasn't BYU added as part of the previous commissioner's tenture?

My thing is not that media deals aren't important, they are, but until this last cycle of media deals fans just didn't care about them. They were there but no one noticed. Now we are all obsessed with them.

You can actually make an argument that it was for less money. Sure the payout per school is about the same as it is now EXCEPT the Big-12 added a net of +2 schools to the conference. They lost their two big money makers and to make up the difference they went quantity to try and create additional content and, though they will resent this comment, filler programing. Cincinnati v UCF probably won't be a bad game to watch, but it isn't going to draw anywhere near the eyeballs that Oklahoma or Texas v anyone (let alone the Red River Shootout itself). Will some of those programs grow and develop fanbases? Yes, of course they will but let's get real here. Cincinnati will always be in Ohio State's shadow and there is nothing that will ever change that. UCF has had a run of success in the G5 level of play but they are never going to break into Florida's top programs of Florida, Florida State and Miami. Same goes for Houston in Texas. BYU also has a ceiling as it is a private school. BYU probably helped move the needle a bit for the Big-12 but BYU's fan base probably isn't going to grow leaps and bounds from what it is now and it is a far cry from what the Big-12 lost in Texas and Oklahoma. They are a band-aid for what they lost. Now, I'm also under no illusions that if the Pac-12 does add SMU and SDSU that that is also a band aid because those programs won't make up for what was lost with the LA Schools. Though I do feel SDSU could probably grow a fan base better than the rest of the schools listed. They are not in LA but southern California and San Diego is a market that college football could really grow into. SMU has a good donor fan-base that will ensure they grow though I don't expect them to ever be as big of a brand as Texas or Texas A&M in the Texas market.

Yeah this wasn't surprising to anyone who seems to be in the loop. The media deal is fascinating aspect of sports fandom these days. I mean honestly... Did anyone care about what happened a decade ago with these media deals? No. But now fans are clamoring to know what's in the pac-12 media deal. How much will it be? Does it come with expansion? And everything we have discussed to no end. But from a business standpoint... They are on their own time table, one not dictated by what the fans want. There will be a deal. We'll find out at some point before the current one expires. I know I say all of this knowing full well I have participated in countless conversations about this topic. More than anything else I just want to point out this strange obession we have right now with the back room dealings of something as mundane as determining what channel or service games will play on. This is something just so strange.

I've been inside though not for a game. It's an incredible space. But I'm not sure it is quite up to the safety regulations anymore. It would have been great if Matt court created a pit in honor of Mac but that doesn't help in creating a multi functional space which Matt and other modern arenas are.

But sometines click bait gives us something to talk about on these long summer days with basically no football news.

I'll be honest... A list of 14 is just kinda silly. That's way too many. I'd say 5 on that list is probably reasonable. 1. Ohio State - they've owned this rivalry but Oregon scoring a win in the shoe was a big igniter for something that was really one-way. We're the up and comer against the blue blood. 2. Wisconsin - last two meetings have been at the Rose Bowl and both Oregon wins came by one score. 3. Michigan State - not as flashy but this one feels like it has some legs. 2014 was a huge win for Oregon and 2015 was a near loss for Oregon mostly due to Vernon Adam's finger. 2018 was a one point victory for the Ducks in a 7-6 win in possibly the most boring game I've ever watched. 4. Auburn - two duck losses but those games were darn close and I think we all wouldn't mind another game. 5. Boise State - this one shouldn't be here but some how Oregon hasn't beaten BSU??? Need to fix that. Honorable mention... FSU. No real rivalry is possible with one game. But Oregon and FSU fans kinda hate each other and that one game was the first college football playoff game and had two Heisman winners. But one game doesn't make a rivalry but if Oregon were to play a couple more against FSU they'll shoot right up that list. I'll be honest OCC rivals are truly rare in college football. Rivalries take time to develop. I'd say Oregon and Utah have a bit of a rivalry now but that's taken over ten years and some spoiled seasons on both sides to create. I guess come next year we have a clear No. 1 and 2 of OOC rivals... USC and UCLA!!! But that's due to them leaving a conference and not being truly OOC rivals until they leave the conference..

I'll pass... I'll be honest the most interesting part of the event is when the press is asking questions of the coaches and players. But instead we get the players and coaches talking to the pac-12 media people and frankly their questions are just terrible. They don't show the decent media interactions, just the really boring ones.

Not going to try and hype up our OOC schedule. It's pretty weak outside of Texas Tech which is kinda the equivalent of scheduling another good Washington State team (not saying this year's WSU team is going to be good but you should get the idea... Dangerous if you don't take care of business as a more talented team). But the pac-12 conference slate is pretty brutal and I'd be hard pressed to find a way to make it much more difficult, being as we can't play both LA schools in a given year. Maybe exchange Colorado for Arizona would make it more difficult. But otherwise you can't have a much more difficult schedule in the PAC. Oregon plays Washington, USC, Oregon state and Utah. With Oregon those are probably the top 5 teams out west. But more east.coadt bias... Do we even play football this far west?

The thing is that the Ducks could actually go 12-0! I think the defense is going to be a whole lot better than last season and if we keep Nix healthy the offense is going to roll. The Washington loss was really on an injured Nix and a defense that was awful. The Oregon state loss probably wouldn't have happened if Nix was healthy as well. The reality of the season is that there will be a game or two that the offense will have to win it and carry the game and there will probably atleast one game where it will be on the defense to get the stops and win the game. Is this team that complete? Probably not but it's possible, they have the talent to do it.

no. 2 in the PAC would be reasonable. I'd probably put Utah at No. 1. I think Oregon can take the PAC this year defensively if they show the improvement they flashed in the spring game. The majority of the major weaknesses that have plagued this defense sense 2020 season were gone. Oregon had the athletes and Lanning has the scheme... Just need those two get in sync. I think Oregon's offense will be as good or better next year. Especially if we don't run the quarterback out of an empty set!!!

Other thing that comes to mind here... To determine if a coach is in the hot seat or not it all comes down to the standards and desires the University has for their football program. For Oregon State the yearly goal is to make a bowl game with aspirations of potentially playing in a good bowl game and making the conference championship game as a crazy good year. The CFP doesn't factor into it. For the Ducks on the other hand... Getting to the conference championship game is kinda the baseline. Many see last year's season as a failure because we didn't make it in Lanning's first year and we were darn close. Oregon's aspirations for any reason is making the playoff. If you were to put Jonathan Smith to Oregon's standards of course he'd have some degree of heat in his seat but he doesn't have to meet the same goals as Lanning does. That's one of the reasons why I also feel like this type of hot seat article is a bit silly. They rarely take into consideration what each program's goals are to determine the hot seat degree.

I believe in the BCS and CFP eras there have only been three teams to reach the national championship game without a proper blue chip ratio. Oregon 2010-11 Oregon 2014-15 TCU 2022 And all three games were losses.. Yes, Oregon probably could have should have won the first one in that list it was close and there were some mind boggling awful calls (outside of the Dyer was down fiasco). 2014-15 Oregon was kinda in it for a half but the wheels fell off. The cupboard of talent was bare at that point and there just wasn't enough talent left on the roster. I don't know if we could have taken Ohio State if we had all our injured players or not at that point but we absolutely couldn't with the talent that we had left. Then last year's game TCU showed they weren't even in the same league as Georgia. They didn't have anywhere near the talent to compete, especially for a national championship. That was a pretty embarrassing game. So yes... Give us the 4 and 5 stars every day because that will enable us to have the roster to compete.

I give Wilcox two more seasons if he doesn't boost Cal's on field performance. Only because Cal really doesn't seem to care too much about football or athletics too much on the whole. Cal was hovering near the bottom last season and if it wasn't for Colorado and Stanford (both which had coaching changes for different reasons) Cal was AT the bottom. I just looked up the basics on Wilcox's contract and it goes through 2027. So in two seasons it will be at the end of 2024-2025 and there won't be much left on his contract to buyout so I can see them making a move then if his results haven't improved. Edit... that contract that ends in 2027 was an extension that was signed last season. So, yeah, Cal isn't moving on Wilcox any time soon. He is basically in the same place as Kelly is at UCLA. Cal actually made money from its athletics last year so I doubt they want to saddle themselves with a big bill this quickly after a contract exertion. His seat is cool.

I hate USC as much as any other Duck fan... And I think their punishment was fine. But there should be a standard. The only reason why their punishment is disproportionate is because they keep letting everyone else off easy by comparison. Lots of schools have learned to punish themselves early before the NCAA is even started the investigation and the NCAA will often go... "That's good enough... Good on you to punish yourself" where that's not how this should work at all. Self punishment should not be considered apart of the NCAA punishment... If a university wants to punish their programs for acting badly they should do that but it shouldn't make a later punishment lesser.

Nice numbers here Jon. Media markets are all wishful thinking in a lot of ways. I think SMU and SDSU would make fine additions but they should get an equal payout for a few years. I say they'll need five years to adjust to the power five and cultivate their fan bases. Both are serious about expanding their brands and given time they'll be good additions but they aren't really instant money.