Charles Fischer

Yes. We still need to have some fun... It is in the Rules, No. 26 right here.

Yep...hold-your-hurl!

So true...

Not much on him yet...is unranked on Rivals at the moment. He doesn't look small, and must have some upside in a thin O-Line recruiting year. Kansas and Utah have also offered him...

Above is another great example of what sounds good until you apply it, and run into another component of human behavior. I did what you suggested for a while and then people started to tell me, "go ahead and edit my posts as you like." This means they would now write whatever they wanted and would "let Charles clean up the mess for me." Who made me their editing maid? Forget that crap. I am not anyone's editing maid; write the damn thing right the first time, or you will get a violation notification email from me. If I have to do that very many times--the relationship ends as a means of reducing my workload. Again...this is harder than it looks. And you don't know what doesn't work until you do it, and then you find out what clever means people figure out to evade it. I just want a civil site. Should that be so hard? The answer is....yes.

Agreed, and I really do not have the time to do that, nor do the moderators want to go that far.

I have learned gradually over the last five years of having rules of civility, that there can be a big difference between what sounds good as a way of implementing a rule, versus what actually works when it comes up. You would not believe how many good people have left this forum on their own accord...(and some recently)...because they liked the rules until they were applied to them. And their violation was mild, and I stated as such, but it had to be removed and the email sent. The real application of what you wrote above is where I started when doing this, but people felt they could not say anything about a former coach or player. This is ends up being my problem when Taggart, Cristobal or Pittman leave; people want to express their opinion about how they left, and end up angrier at me than the player or coaches. Thus why my rules only pertain to current players and coaches. This is much harder in application than it looks. Much harder than it would seem... Much harder than it should be, and thus why no one else does it.

There is no tee in college, but there is in high school.

As Coach Lanning stated in a video before the season..."whoever the offensive line coach is of the opposing team? I want to make him work."

I have the "good-or-good" approach. If Utah wins--good for them and their fans. If USC wins--it helps the conference and can later help Oregon. It's good-or-good.

Me too. "I never said I was noble."

The article below just makes me ill, at how they are both playing good football for the first time in over 15 years--on the eve of leaving the conference? It is not right, and feels like either we have been delivered a dose of bad karma, or perhaps....Oregon is destined to spoil it for both? Unbeaten USC, UCLA driving college football resurgence in LA WWW.CBSNEWS.COM It's a vibe playing out across Southern California among families, friends and just about anybody who loves sports. Excitement is high on both sides of this crosstown rivalry for the resurgence of...

I disagree with the main premise that Alex suggests to win the game; in fact I believe we should do the opposite. He suggests we ball-control and keep the UCLA offense off the field. But as DazeNconfused and I revealed a few weeks ago here, here, and here....the Oregon strategy is be efficient in scoring, (Dilly said this) and make the other team work hard to try to score while burning up clock. It is the new updated version of Bend-But-Don't-Break, and I think that since Oregon does it well--we will continue to. The difference with the Aliotti days, is that when Oregon got a big lead in those days--Nick had quite a few blitzes that created turnovers. We have not seen many yet; could this be the game?

My concern is Flowe's inexperience, at how he could be learning contain speed and movement at the team's expense. Meanwhile Bassa has a ton more experience, and has already been playing Spy on a number of plays already. (I will be doing an analysis about Oregon's Spies in the future)

And a historical one. Time is a flat circle....

Wow! What a great report and now that explains how Waz had a "in-the-catbird-seat" kind of attitude when interviewed before. The question about Waz has been..."can he recruit?" It looks like he is!

I invite guest articles, appreciate all views and enjoyed chatting with Byron...but I disagree with him. Adding more teams and splitting the pie that much more lowers our revenue per school, and I think we have other options before it is over. Adding a streamer, and now the new 12-team playoff will be a boon to Oregon, IMHO, as we will have a much greater probability to going to it with what Lanning is building. Add to that a new revenue-sharing contract to where the team that goes to a bowl game or playoff gets half the payout, not a tenth. That alone will change Oregon's revenues and over a five year period could bring us into similar payouts as the B1G. I believe that Oregon could become the "Clemson of the West" where we dominate a conference, (or like Gonzaga in basketball in the WCC) go to playoffs often, and recruit well nationally on our status and revived national brand. And I do think adding San Diego State makes sense, and then that is it. "We are the Pac-12 with 11 teams?" Yep, since that is the trendy thing these days. The B1G is not ten teams, nor is the Big-12 a total of twelve teams...in fact are any named correctly? We would fit right in. It is still too early to tell, but we may end up being alright staying in the Pac-12, and adding only SDST.

Precisely my feelings; I don not want to play Iowa instead of Arizona, and if it is in the cold? Make it Pullman and not Minnesota...

Lost two games alone from him. Stanford in 2012, and USC in 2011...right in front of the goal posts with no wind inside 42 yards for the win.

Me too. I never said I was noble...

I'll go with that; I stand corrected.

Boy, is that the sad truth I've learned. No matter how clear I make it--there is always grey area. And then people will point to how it is grey, and how what they wrote is pretty benign. But yet reading it doesn't feel good... And often when I make a decision about a post--I know that a percentage of the time, I will lose the OBD member. Some people are quite sensitive and cannot even handle the thought of being called out, and that hangs over me as I wrestle with how I am going to approach this post. I should be paid big-bucks for the anguish I go through at times, but instead....I PAY big-bucks to have this forum! Ludicrous I know, but I do love this community of nice people.

That is very true. Dealing with 15 violations a month, over 700 in five years...changes you. On one hand, I want to make it easier on me, but that requires I be pretty cold with the process and you can lose good people that way. Yet at times--trying to cushion it or reason with some people has been a futile exercise in frustration. Something that this thread has confirmed is the wide range of judgments on this, as some said that none of the three examples bothered them, and others said that all three did. I had hoped there would be more consensus, and this muddies the water that much more. In the end... "there is no silver bullet for this, Charles." I came to everyone about this because it is hard, and it remains that way.

It is 49.8 points per game. Almost 50!

Fun article, and it reminded me what the "Grizzled Ol' Coach" taught me years ago before he passed--the difference between a "Jet Sweep" and a "Fly Sweep." A Jet Sweep is when you are in the Shotgun and the QB hands off or tosses the football to a flanker/receiver who has gone in motion and speeding across the LOS in front of the QB. A "Fly Sweep" is when the QB is snapping from center and hands off behind him to the receiver speeding past. When I saw that play with the tight end, I about went nuts. A "Fly Sweep" with a tight end? I love it!