Mike West

Yeah well, The first thing Deion said- on the field (after winning the game) was Good Gosh is great. Outside the Religious/Religion aspect, that means Sanders believes in something bigger than himself. How do you think he put together a team (that hardly knows each other) that maintained their poise against a team that had the most poise all of 2022? His son by the way, threw for 500 yards against a team in a conference that throws it as much as the PAC12. His son deserves plenty of credit. The Buffs traded leads with TCU, and won it on the road. Damn near every D1 coach silently-and some quite vocally- called Sanders out. For his style. For daring to clean out losers on his team. Those coaches deserved a crow dinner. Now they really know they'll have to coach against him instead of rely on talent. Sanders revived a defunct program- in the face of many people that said he was all flash and no substance. And lest you think he's a flash in the pan, he is now in direct competition with one Dan Lanning. Shooting for kids that relate to him pretty well. And don't think Deion isn't going to use that after Lanning dissed Colorado. Lanning just put a bull's eye on our recruiting efforts. We better bury Colorado, or we're going to be ticked at more than his attitude.

Out of left field I'm going to say if Oregon State can hold on to HC Smith, they will get a playoff berth no matter what G5 conference status they have. They are better than any G5 teams, including the fireworks of Tulsa, Memphis and UTSA. I say WSU and Oregon State start pushing this narrative because both of their sets of personnel are perfect for the G5. They would both have to sell this to the players of course, but in reality only a select few players could really make an impact at the P5 level from either team. Playoff status means money. Add in the NFL ALWAYS finds talent, no matter the level means a playoff berth (or conferences championship berth) provides plenty of exposure to NFL scouts. It's starting to hit home that TV scheduling killed a valuable regional conference and people are starting to lament this realignment mess. It is really regrettable the PAC12 exec committee dropped the ball like they did.

That's called black confidence. Willie Taggart was like that too. The difference? Well I think you are seeing the difference. Don't mistake black style for arrogance. Until the 90s, black men were invisible. All that "clowmanship" isn't arrogance. It's regular life in many black neighborhoods. Do not mistake style as character. They are completely different. Sanders is all character. I mentioned I believed Sanders would be successful. Because I know Sanders is a man of character. I ignore the bravado when I talk to black men, I pay attention to what they say and what they do. But I grew up around it (obviously), so I know what to look for. One of the greatest experiences I ever had was moving to Eugene and recognizing people I was told were racist weren't. Because they didn't judge my style. They sought and found out who I was...they vetted my character.

I agree the Media Companies facilitated this. I do believe, however, that the PAC12 was no longer a viable conference once the Presidents declared war on football and basketball. Two media deals the conference rejected guaranteeing their future. The past few years...NOBODY watching the conference around the country. Would you risk 30 to 50 Million Dollars a year on a conference that can't garner 20 million plus eyeballs a week WITH USC in the Conference? I know I wouldn't. The networks made a move to get eyeballs on teams that people watch. I believe the 4 corner schools are going to get far more viewers in the Big12 than they will get this year-a year when the conference will probably net a CFP berth. The PAC12 Title game is on Friday for crying out loud. That says so much. A Power 5 conference cannot compete for eyeballs with their respective P5 counterparts. The ratings even support that. After getting home for work, PAC12 fans- and we're talking 33 Million Californians, 7 Million Washingtonians, 4 Million Oregonians, 5 Million Coloradans, 7 Million Arizonians, and 3.5 Million Utah residents-in other words 60 Million Residents, AND PAC12 after dark viewers around the rest of the country (who are already at home for the 8pm start) do not watch that game more than the games the following morning, afternoon and evening. USC played Utah for the title game. Florida-Utah garnered as many eyeballs last September. That is not a recipe for requesting 30 million plus a year. That tells me the South watched the game in September, and didn't care in November-despite USC being on the cusp of a playoff berth. In what world does a TV network lose money paying teams that aren't in demand (well, we actually know the answer to that question- North Korea, and Cuba to name a couple). Businesses invest money in money makers. The PAC12 is more valuable separate than together. And as "Crystal Ball John"-my favorite college football analyst on this forum (the one and only Jon Joseph)-stated: expenses are going to rise steeply once the players start getting paid for their services as they have been requesting seriously the past ten years (I believe this trend started when the players sued EA Sports and the NCAA for their NIL rights-it was Pandora's Box opening in my opinion). No one wants to admit this sport is a business. It isn't amateur athletics. Hasn't been since the blue bloods sued for their TV rights. It's been about power and money for a very long time. Thank Good Gosh for Title IX, and it was definitely a pleasure to see all state football players that wouldn't see the national stage get TV exposure for being excellent in their little corner of the world (the G5 athletes). I will miss that once that trend begins. I sure hope softball, women's basketball, volleyball and the Olympic Sports still get exposure, but I have my doubts. That is something to lament in my mind. I sure didn't hear anything about the sad state of the PAC12 and the regionality of sports until the conference died. That says a whole bunch to me. As in, it didn't matter until it mattered. We sure take for granted things we think we deem precious in this country, until it's too late. Cognitive Dissonance is as guilty as those greedy networks if you ask me.

The talent was so subpar I doubt that unit would have performed well even if they did grasp the concept of Lanning's defense. They were slow, out of position on simple routes, didn't tackle well, and had no intensity at all. It by was simply a terrible defense, with terrible talent. The middle linebackers never covered the middle pass routes ( what else are they supposed to cover?). The safeties were on the other side of the field on just about every deep pass completion, it was ridiculous. By any standard, a safety is supposed to prevent any player from running past them. The really good ones can do that AND close to break up passes ( we saw UGA do that and more). Georgia made our defense look like a high school defense. That is unacceptable. Especially when the unit is composed of four star recruits. No, it wasn't confusion, it was poor play. And it was pretty similar to Cristobal's unit his final year. When Utah and Oregon State ran through then like a hot knife through butter. They looked the same. Obviously, I'm pretty disgusted with the players that performed the way they did those two years, because I won't excuse the poor performance. It was that horrible.

Last year's defense was predictable. The secondary was horrible, and had been for to long. Gonzalez was the first step, but show guys, guys that don't understand football, and I mean basic coverage concepts cannot and will not be successful. Look at the spring game... The year the Fuskies best us down 70-14, I saw in the Spring Game that slaughter. I argued with a ground of mine how big the doors would be. I fixed my teeth on that game. Ten thousand dollars. It was that obvious. It is more than clear this defense of going to wreck plans for most teams... They tackle, they close separation well ( catch up to runners that have a lead on them), they takeout well in Killeen space, the leave little room for elite recovers in the middle of the field to get open, they plus running holes quickly. This defense is miles ahead of last year. This team has the chance to go undefeated because of this defense. We saw all of that against a pretty lethal offense. Ours. I'd be surprised if we go 9-3 or 10-3 this year. I see 10-2 minimum.

I was just thinking that. The reporters don't get to report anymore either. We will only see what this team is when the games are played. We did get a glimpse from Spring. And I really liked what I saw. Now it is a matter of how much they improve as the season goes on. I know we were disappointed over the end of the regular season, but frankly, after the Georgia blowout, I expected that much sooner. So I am encouraged because Lanning replaced the chaff and got himself some wheat. Now we will see how much he learned from last year.

I think we have a good idea of how good this team may be... Offense 42.5 PPG Rush: 175 Pass: 303 Defense 22.5 PPG Rush: 110 Pass: 265 12-2 Conference Champs and a Loss in the Rose Bowl to Michigan 24-31 This team has a real shot at going undefeated. Having to play five really tough opponents, including the fifth in the conference title game prepares the team for the playoffs. NOT facing the kind of firepower Michigan has will be too much this year. This team was playoff bound if Nix didn't get injured at the end of the Fuskie game. They are definitely better than last year's team, but they have work to do. I'm not sure they're focused enough right now ( based on what DL said coming out of the scrimmage last week). How much they obliterate Portland State will tell me how serious they are about taking no prisoners. Texas Tech early is a good thing, especially after a cupcake opening game. The Red Raiders are a better version of WSU so I'd like to see a 10-14 point victory. That would tell me they are serious and ready to handle business. That's the least this year's elite would do... And that is the benchmark ( Huck the Fuskies, Discipline the Spoiled Children, Humble little brother, and Nuke the Utes, but only the Condoms have the kind of talent that is CFP material). It's time we step up to elite level gradually this year. I like that Lanning sets a high bar. It's up to the players now. Killer Instinct. High sense of urgency. Take no prisoners. They faced the buzzsaw last year, so they know what an elite team is supposed to do. Let's see how far they've come.

This is a tough pill to swallow. Non revenue sports are subsidized, plain and simple. I still think the drive to win, and pay college coaches better than NFL coaches gave players all the motivation to ask for their part in driving the revenue that's created by this popular sport. While one one hand, my thought is "you wouldn't exist without football, the other hand understands how much time athletes spend in addition to school on their sport. But without football, were really talking about only having basketball and softball for women. I know the WNBA wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for the NBA, and I certainly don't think Women's Soccer has much to complain about because they hardly turn a profit at the Olympics but feel they should get paid the same as the men( who make TEN TIMES THE REVENUE- that is really annoying to me because everyone knows the women's soccer league doesn't turn a profit either). I believe one of the solutions may be the teams stay on the other side of the country until they finish their scheduled road trip for a few games (like ten days), so they can rest without all the travel. They're damn near pros anyway with the schedules they have, so why not ( I know most people consider them amateurs, but these players would work a forty hour week if the colleges didn't restrict their time- and the excellent players spend that time on their own to be their best)

You know, if Eddie Robinson faced off against Bear Bryant in their time, Robinson would have smoked the Bear...and then some. Anyone that disputes that only need to uncover all the AFL players Robinson coached that altered pro football when Bryant was sending players to the NFL. Robinson was a class act, and wasn't brash like Deon Sanders is. He probably would be considered an acceptable coach in this era, because his style matches the successful coaches in this era. Lane Kiffin just held a presser about the fact not many black coaches get the opportunities they deserve to be head coaches. I wonder if it is because many of the black coaches are similar in style to Willie Taggart and Sanders. The kind of style most fans don't like because they are so different. Sanders is much more than hype. His previous school was successful because of his style, his work ethic, and the expectations he set for his 'kids'. I think that will eventually translate to Colorado, and it will be because he is who he is. While I don't subscribe to fighting , I had a similar response, but I wasn't offended by his comments. Furthermore, you will find all of his NFL teammates respected Sanders' work ethic (he demanded they work as hard as he did), and they appreciated WHO he was- especially the white players. Sanders went head up against Bo Jackson, and got run over pretty bad. He didn't challenge much after that. I wonder if it was because he wanted a long NFL career, and didn't feel the need to challenge bigger players than himself. He was brash yes, but he backed it up in work ethic and results. I seem to note players like Gronk, though not as brash, sure played it up like Sanders did. It's just a matter of style in my opinion, and yes Sanders comes from a background where you damn near had to stud up- because that's what it's like in a lot of black neighborhoods. Don't let the style fool you. Sanders is competitive. And his fellow coaches are going to hate it if he starts recruiting very well and starts winning -which I believe will happen. And some of them quite frankly will deserve Sanders' response. I don't think it was a good idea that Lanning trashed Colorado on the way out. We know Sanders would have been criticized for that gesture (by far). Not that I think Lanning was wrong, I just would have whipped Colorado instead. Let your play do the talking. I know I would be out for Sanders myself, but not to humiliate him. Just to show I'm a damn good coach. That's the class and style fans enjoy. But internally, I damn well know Sanders is a force to be reckoned with, no matter his style. Unlike a lot of classless coaches that negatively recruit, I respect Sanders for bringing his attitude and style. You know who he is. He isn't phony one bit.

While I agree Fox pulled the trigger on this, the SEC and Big Ten realize they're going to have to share revenue with the players. This was going to happen anyway. Just discount see it happening so quickly. That didn't exonerate the PAC12 leadership at all. Or USC frankly. Having a TV deal compared to selling candy is telling. And frankly, I wouldn't spend $30 million a year on a region that undervalues college football. Let's be real about it, West Coast fans have too much to do- especially in California- besides watch college football. Not one of the schools, including the LA school draw five million eyeballs a game- and let's face it- Cal, Stanford and UCLA don't even fill their stadiums every week. That's a recipe for terrible finances. But Fox clearly put the nail in the coffin. ESPN did also, knowing the conference couldn't compete for eyeballs in the 12:30 and 4:30 time slots. The conference was doomed once C Suite Larry couldn't snag A&M, OU and Texas.

True. But now East Coast and Southern families have closer access to seeing their kids play live. That is an awesome recruiting tool. A kid from Texas is closer to Iowa and Minnesota than Eugene, LA, SF and Seattle. A kid from Florida is also. Oregon joining the Big 10 is a threat to the SEC now. Families in SEC territory know the value of a marquee team that will play closer to home and will be watched by millions more people. I also hope the West Coast teams play each other every year. That's six high value matchups the conference can hype each year. Better than Indiana v. Purdue for sure. It will also be more equitable for the years the West Coast schools travel five times a year in conference games ( two west coast games, three back east). Time will tell if UM and tOSU will allow a level playing field. If not, gearing up to beat them in the title game and the playoffs ( in other words, tailor your team to prepare for both year round) will be poetic justice.

I think I get it now. I got halfway through the article and it struck me. I now understand why millions of people around the country lament the transition to nationally focused college football. You see, I'm from Southern California. I moved to Eugene when I was fourteen. I lived in a Megalopolis. Full of world class people, that weren't born in the USA necessarily. My perspective has never been local, or even regional. Until I moved to Eugene, Oregon State and Oregon were pesky little pests. Missouri anything was meaningless. Winston Salem didn't even exist in my mind. That's what this is about for millions, their little corner of the world meant something for ten, eleven, or twelve weeks (more if their team was a basketball powerhouse). That's all gone now. Suddenly, people have to watch blue bloods hammer the "insignificant" guy. And the blue bloods get paid millions for it. Now it's going to be ever more difficult for Appalachian State to upset Michigan. But even more, college towns all over the country no longer will feed into a region they can claim as theirs. Oregon State is no more significant than Utah State (totally untrue since they have an engineering program that is as good as, if not better that Washington brags about). Ironically, that was the case more than one hundred years ago when the conference was founded. But what WSU and Oregon State built were two fine programs (and universities) worthy of national attention. Maybe not as world class as say Stanford or USC (and don't choke over the spoiled children-USC is a superior University by all means), but both are significant schools by any standard. Now, they lose some of that identity. Now, they are relegated back to the "insignificance" of their locale. Same for several university and college towns. But for their attachment to more prestigious and we'll populated cities, they don't mean much outside their area or region. And TV killed that. If I wasn't a crazy football fan, Pullman would never be a thought in my mind. And while I lived in Los Angeles it never did (until September). I wasn't really a fan of USC or UCLA when I lived in Los Angeles, but I did like UCLA's uniforms better. I never identified with any of the conference schools. I lived in a town full of famous people (that I didn't care about), and other areas of the world didn't really matter. That's why I don't get what most if the country feels right now. But I got it when Bill Oram talked about identity. It truly stuck in my mind because I knew he was talking to an audience that completely feels like he does. That I'd feel that way if I grew up up my whole life in Eugene, or Fayetteville. I personally don't believe college football falls into an NFL disdainful world. People in Pittsburgh didn't go to the University of the Steelers. As soon as our generation dies, lots of the nostalgia of college life dies with it. Nothing against any other generation, but our identities were tied to loyalty in a manner no generation that followed will ever match. As to WSU and OSU really being angry right now, they hardly ever played for much outside of pride. That still exists because honestly speaking here, Oregon State and Washington State cannot compete BECAUSE of their locale. National Titles in football, or even conference titles are and have been out of their reach for decades. But I get it. It would mean nothing to me if USC and UCLA were left behind. Los Angeles is way bigger than that. It's world class. It's worldwide.

Isn't it ironic...we don't want to have them much and they don't want us. Sounds like two teams not wanting tough competition to me. Everybody wants to be Clemson!

There are small players involved in this process. The CW for one, and Apple isn't exactly a big producer of sports content. This means there are new entrants coming into the market. The all know the numbers. I'd say the four new Big12 members added more value to the market for Power Five Conferences than the current ensemble of teams in our conference. I believe without SMI and SDSU, that grows. Again, they've known the numbers for long enough to know the score. This isn't just Fox and ESPN playing hardball. Apple is very measured about the risk they are taking with our conference. The CW supposedly offered Wednesday games as a package. That tells me we are not valued enough in the 12:30 time slot, or the 4:30 and 5:00 time slots. In other words, the Big 12 is more valuable in both those slots, and they draw enough eyeballs in the Noon EST slot. They simply offer more value, despite not having one team with the global presence OBD have. This opinion isn't biased either. We don't draw enough interest nationwide to risk low ad dollars. USC v. Utah drew 2.5 Million fewer viewers than Kansas State v. TCU on championship weekend. Our title game is relegated to Friday night because we can't compete with even Kansas State and TCU (with USC mind you). Not to mention straight up against the Big Ten or SEC. Those are concrete numbers that any business would use to evaluate our conference. This isn't just greed. I'd say the tv contract that is closing out this year isn't producing much of a profit. With UCLA...with USC. So I am not convinced greed is the only factor. NIL benefits the elite athlete. Players have demanded "fair" compensation for at least five years now. The leaders in the industry recognize this elephant in the room, and I believe it is driving market forces as well. WSU can't afford to pay half their revenue to players...heck OBD would struggle with that. Football and Basketball are about to get more expensive. The marquee programs are going to demand more revenue to cover those expenses. They can afford to better than most. Fair compensation was an issue when I graduated from high school. I know because I talked to UW players when UW was natty material regularly. They were furious at the prospect they didn't get paid for the time they put into the sport. And this was well before multi million dollar contracts for coaches. We all know under the table compensation for players is a decades old issue. Now it's in the forefront. And our conference, with the lowest ratings of a Power Five Conference, is in the cross hairs because we don't generate the kind of revenue to justify that new increase that is coming. There is now talk that Venture capital has to enter the fray because let's face it, college football is a minor league professional enterprise now. And an expensive one at that. USC and UCLA are going to travel a lot more and their players are going to get paid for it. It's coming whether we like it or not (and I was ticked off when NIL embedded itself into the game). Our Conference is not a profitable prospect at Big 12 numbers. They are going to Garner more viewers moving forward. They did last year while the new members were G5 teams. While we thumbed our noses at BYU wanting to rest on Sundays, the Big 12 was calculating the numbers. And I'm sure Fox and ESPN were too. That brand alone is going to compete again now that they will face a TCU. And they're going to get significant numbers given their following. So I'm sure little players like the CW and Ion were crunching numbers too. They aren't going to enter the market for the sake of losing money.

Yep, I'd take any path as well. I just prefer the Dominance path. Clemson went undefeated with two close games (over 9-4 A&M and 10-3 Syracuse), and beat Bama handily. They went undefeated again and walloped everybody. Only to face Super Juggernaut LSU...and they got stomped. Goes to show it's ok to play in a mediocre league any have your chances.

Clemson is not the model. Georgia is the model. Alabama is the model. Put it on a team so hard and fast they start to blink. Like Mike Tyson. But even more, able to handle anything like Ali. That takes a mentality that wants to destroy average teams, not just beat them. Let up when that team concedes physically and mentally. No mercy. Clemson didn't have the fortune to earn it like some SEC teams, but they destroyed their conference. And that barely was enough to handle Alabama, and wasn't even close to handling LSU. The only team capable of handling Georgia the past two years and LSU with Burrow was Alabama. That is your mark. That is the standard.

That is a major stretch. Did anyone catch the ads? LOL

So C Suite Larry valued the P12 at FIVE BILLION DOLLARS? So the past ten years really came down to grossly overestimating the P12's market value. I'd forgotten about the DirecTV fast move. But then again, they offered value (and don't the schools spend millions on their telecommunications already?). To use academic language, obtuse doesn't describe the half of it when it comes to the leadership in this conference. Two shots at 38 MILLION eyeballs. That was supposed to be worth $5B despite not having one football game break the 10 million viewership mark. Ever. Isn't the SEC deal worth close to $3B. And the Big Ten deal at north of $2.5B? What does that tell you my friends? I don't know about anyone else, but that more than concerns me.

Im loyal. But I'm not taking a 33% paycut loyal. Not saying that is the offer, but I'm not sacrificing my dignity to be loyal. Why is this deal taking so long? Money absolutely has to be the sticking point in this. There is a ton of risk involved in this deal. The conference cannot afford ' maybe you'll get $31M". The conference really can't afford nonlinear coverage in my opinion. I wouldn't take that risk personally. That's an all or nothing proposition. The Presidents have practically ruined the conference's reputation. I hope they're not stupid enough to tie themselves into something that resembles the ACC deal. As to Arizona signing by Tuesday: I'd be surprised at that. But it would indicate they've been on the fence for far longer than they've declared. When the dust settles, there are going to be lots of people with egg on their faces ( I'll quickly admit I'm wrong- that would mean the conference stays together a while longer).

I think another SNL attendee committed last night also.

Ok guys, I am going to rain on this, but not on purpose. And I actually hope some negative emojis come of it. It's nothing personal, and this group does not intend to be disrespectful by any means. My concern is with Cal, Stanford (when they have a horrible record), WSU and Oregon State. That group gets no love nationally until they are thick in the hunt for a conference title (again Stanford is an exception in that case). I'd like an opinion from our Georgia friends on that because SEC fans are FOOTBALL fans. Football is almost akin to life in the South. Who roots for little brother Beaver in the South? OBD are certainly going to be fine. But what TV exec is looking out for Oregon State? We're talking about a decent football team here. How many fans in Kentucky care about the Beavers? How many are going to switch channels ( stream on their phone) when the Beavers play Utah next year? My thinking is along those lines because it's not Oregon, UW and Utah that are driving the bus when it comes to evaluating our conference. Pretty good Oregon State is though. I truly believe the reason we've had issues for nearly ten years getting a reasonable deal is because we don't draw enough MARGINAL interest from our "vanilla" teams. Whereas, Rutgers is going to get decent numbers simply because Midwest folks watch football and we (West Coast viewers) don't. It's a cruel numbers game. Why do you think it's taking so long to get an "acceptable" deal? I believe it's the combo of too much to do on an average Saturday out West, horrible attendance and viewership on the West Coast, EAST COAST BIAS, and too few brands like Oregon that the South, Midwest and Atlantic Coast follow. Unfortunately, it's the perfect storm going against us. I believe that is always the discussion when it comes to our conference. Again, I'm not trying to be too negative here. I'm just looking at it objectively given this has been going on since 2014.

I really doubt the SEC and Big Ten are going to watch this conference disintegrate and give it an automatic bid in the playoffs for very long. When MWC teams defeat us on a regular basis, that means its curtains. That is coming my friend. USC leaving put us on thin ice. Who will watch any of us outside of Oregon-UW, Oregon-Utah, Utah-UW? The Ohio State-Michigan game draws three Oregon-UW games on TV. Three of our best matchup. Kids change schools on a dime. They want to play now. Elite kids want as large a TV audience they can attract. From a business standpoint, Oregon is education and NIL deal strong. That Georgia loss last year didn't scare off this class, but if the TV exposure diminishes, and every if playoff is a repeat of last September, do you really think five star kids are going to consider the fine education, excellent NIL deals and a family atmosphere attractive? I am quite certain we missed out on three five star studs this year because of this debacle. Close isn't good enough. USC is going to draw more eyeballs next year than they would staying in our conference. They already surpassed us this year in recruiting, and its only summer. We are 3 time zones from the hotbed of talent in this country. Lanning is good, but my brother, a soiled conference, diminishing eyeballs, and no Nattys speak louder than "we'll make it to the playoffs". We have one shot. An undefeated, butt whupping, eye opening undefeated season this year. At least one win in the playoffs, and hopefully a Natty. That will keep them interested. Because I totally believe the PAC12 is done as an elite conference. Nobody wants to say it, but it is as clear as day the rest of the country no longer respects the PAC12. That is a huge obstacle to overcome. I don't like being negative, but I've felt this way since I found out USC and the Presidents turned ESPN down.

Seems to me the fans in the PAC12 chose this path long ago. USC bolstered themselves leaving this conference in my opinion. If PAC12 fans filled stadiums and watched games every season, would DirectTV have ignored us? Avid fans don't like the moves made recently, but they clearly aren't enough. It's a simple fact that the West Coast prefers the NFL, not college football (and even that is sketchy). I'm also curious why OU fans don't like the move to the SEC (no longer the big fish in a small pond?) One last thing;. I don't think USC is going to have problems recruiting like we will moving forward. As long as we're a PAC12 property, we are going to see elite players forsake us. We no longer have a national stage- or in this age the kind of national presence kids want to have. And players really don't care what PAC12 fans have to say about it.

Couldn't have said it better.