On 9/9/2023 at 9:08 PM, cartm25 said:

My thoughts, positive, negative, and general musings:

 

- Got the W in a hostile environment.

- Defense created more havoc.

- I miss Kenny Dillingham already

- Offense seems lethargic and less multiple compared to last year.

- OL concerns?

- Bo Nix is not a pure pocket passer, as such, for the offense to be most effective, Bo Nix needs to be used in the run game.

- 2022 Oregon vs. WSU version 2.0?

- Even the best years have a game or two like this.

- Dorlus + Bassa = Awesome pick 6

- Colorado, Deion, and DL’s comments are looming large; I think Colorado is better than Texas Tech.

Very good assessment.  Though I don't believe Colorado is better than Texas Tech, they just make fewer mistakes.

 Glass half full...

 

Nobody was saying"They are who we thought they were, and we let em off the hook!!!!"

 

I can still say Playoffs without saying " Playoffs, don't talk about Playoffs.  I just hope we win a damn game".

 

These guys can be real good...if they want to be.  We'll just have to wait and see.  

He he he...

 

Don't you want USC undefeated so we can stomp them... twice?

First order of being elite: never yield twenty points or more to a mid range team. 

 

Second order of being elite: drop 24 in the first half.  Every damn game.

 

Plenty of work to do.  Plenty of time to demonstrate progress towards those goals. 

 

 

Not what I was looking for.

 

I realize Utah struggled, but they went to their third string guy to pull it out.  

 

I see glimpses.  But we are not the best team in the conference.  

 

Glad we get twelve games.  But we only have twelve games.  

 

I can see why we get LOTS OF COACH SPEAK.  This will be a long term project.  

 

 We are not Jedi yet.

On 9/9/2023 at 1:10 PM, Log Haulin said:

I disagree. I don't think colorado took control of this game. 4 turnovers handed this victory to the Buffs.

 

Nebraska D kinda gave up, which is unfortunate. Huskers were dominating Buffs first half. But with the O giving the ball up so much, just kinda looked like the D said "Whats the point?"

 

Hope the team doesn't quit on Rhule. I don't think they are as bad s they looked. QB play is horrendous, gotta fix that.

Take away the turnover points.  What do you see?  A 13-7 game.  At least before the garbage TD to end the game. So you're right.

 

Ironically, Nebraska's first TD was the kind of play calling I expected to see in the first half.  Including the type of formations I expected to see from.

 

That tells me not only does Sanders have a better set of coaches, they also showed adjustments before Nebraska ( 235 yards of offense and those 13 points).

 

Yeah, I definitely see Colorado forcing teams to beat them physically, because they aren't going to out coach them.  I didn't see an ounce of doubt from Colorado's players.  

 

 Phil Steele ( the stat geek and great evaluator of talent) projects Colorado will average 25 on offense, 35 on defense in conference play.  I agree with that assessment.  And they can steal a couple of wins if coaches mistake their lack of talent as a gimme win. 

 

I'd be all over that film room if I were Arizona and ASU.  They better have damn good analysts that include backup plans for their coordinators, because Colorado adjusts before halftime.  

I know it's going to annoy people that Colorado won this week.  They are clearly well coached.  That really aren't that talented, but they are exploiting Nebraska miscues like a talented team does.  

 

That's simply very good coaching.  They will get their dose of humble pie though.  As some have pointed out, lethal offenses are going to light the Buffs up, and solid defenses are going to shut them down.  

 

We are going to see how good USC's defense is when they play the Buffs.  We will see if Arizona and ASU actually have potent offenses. We will also see how good Oregon State's offense is.  

 

Colorado is truly going to expose coaches this year.  They are going to grow-meaning they are going to reduce their mistakes and make teams beat them solely with talent (instead of exploiting Colorado mistakes).  

 

Coaches around the country have already commented on how poised Colorado's players are.  They demonstrated that again, and took control of this game.  Better, mind you, than Minnesota did last week.  

 

Nebraska needs to move on from QB Sims ( unfortunately).  He can't finish drives, and his OC set him up well enough to do so.  If Nebraska's defense maintains and progresses, HC Ruhl will upset a couple of his Big Ten West rivals (as long as they get that offense going).  

 

Colorado is capable of winning half their games if the grow each week ( yes AZ and ASU's defenses are that bad).  

On 9/4/2023 at 11:59 AM, Log Haulin said:

Good points on scoreboard. But TCU lost most of the Dudes on last years team. The #17 rank is partly results of last year. TCU personel has changed over defensively as much as Oregons. More so offensively 

 

I think its a little premature to crown Buffs after one game. Nice win to start the year for Buffs for sure though.

TCU lost some dudes up front on defense, and they had 7 return on defense.  Their QB started the season as #1, but was injured.

 

Notice they were number 17- appropriate for what they lost.  They won 9 of 10 close games last year.  They made plays, and recovered from costly mistakes against Colorado. 

 

Colorado took that game from a seasoned and well coached ranked team.  After winning one game last year.  One. Colorado should have folded, and lost.  They didn't.

 

They deserve massive credit.  They aren't talented enough to beat 11 more #17 teams, but Sanders took 81 new guys, that have known each other for FOUR months, with ONE starter returning on defense, and held a team -that scored three more points than they averaged last year as a national runner up -from scoring as the game ended 

 

There is no discounting that kind of accomplishment. None.  Sanders took a perennial loser on the road and took that game.  It wasn't luck.  They seized the moment.  That doesn't happen by accident. It simply doesn't happen period. 

 

You can hate his style,. You can hate the hype, and his response to the doubters.  Sanders deserves credit and respect for defying huge odds.  Point blank.  No ifs, no buts.  No excuses.  

On 9/4/2023 at 3:19 PM, 1Ducker1 said:

LSU may win 6 games in the SEC this year. I don't think that's what the AD had in mind when they hired him. JD wasn't that great at ASU in terms of winning.

For me, Jayden Daniels reverted to ASU form.  His accuracy had always been suspect to me, and I just don't think he is clutch enough versus elite teams.

 

Brian Kelly said as much without staying it ( though he did mention it walking off the field at halftime).  Daniels is the key to their season.  Travis Jordan stepped up under major guess in the second quarter, while Daniels missed targets in the red zone.  

 

Jordan is growing while Daniels is treading water.  Brian Kelly cannot throw on Third and long, cannot hit open WRs, he can only provide Daniels the opportunity- and that opportunity was plenty enough.  LSU should have buried FSU early, and they didn't- that was all Daniels.

He has to see the entire field.  I also thought he looked much better.  Scanned the field, and actually attacked the defense for once.  I still think his sense of timing is off, but he looked much better ( but it was against zero pressure- let's see his game when he has to release quick, into tight windows). 

 

Let's hope he is learning rapidly now, and is finally grasping the speed of the game, and making it show down so he can read and react appropriately.

On 9/3/2023 at 6:27 PM, Solar said:

The only thing about Stein that I'm still a little nervous about is the route trees.

 

I don't get the sense they stress the secondaries as much as Dillys' did. Maybe not as many rubs or something.

 

It just seems harder for multiple receivers to get separation or find soft spots in the zone like we saw last year and we see with USC.

 

It's still a small sample size though. Hopefully it turns out to not be a thing.

Oh I think Stein will stretch defenses.  When the time is right of course.  Didn't see any conference (PAC12) defense defend speed well.  And we have  two F22s and three F16s.  One thing though, Nix has to hit them at 45 yards because that's his limit accuracy wise. 

 

I'm more concerned about the defense.  We need a defense at least as good as Chip's Title team, or the 2019 version.  I didn't see that yesterday.  I realize we didn't show TTU much on purpose, but I hardly saw DL pressure like we need, and PSU is a D-2 school.  

 

I like Stein's offense.  He uses clutch routes to convert 3rd and long plays.  He uses the TEs very well.  He gets the RBs the ball often.  It's an offense that can challenge elite defenses.  That's more important than burning DBs deep. 

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. 

 

On 9/2/2023 at 10:40 AM, Log Haulin said:

Is it just me or do others find themselves rooting against coach Sanders? His ego and arrogance is a huge turn off to me.

 

I usually root for P12 teams, struggling with this one though 

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.

 

 

On 8/25/2023 at 9:56 PM, David Marsh said:

This line stood out to me... 

 

"The reason conferences are grasping at every dollar right now is the understanding that, moving forward, there will be fewer dollars available. " 

 

Then the article goes on to say that the media companies are losing revenue so they can't payout as much.

 

Which has some truth in it... 

 

BUT the bigger culprit here is that those media companies are intentionally paying the B1G and SEC way more than other conferences to speed the collapse. The ACC is left chasing B1G and SEC money and they'll never be paid that much. The pac chased it and died because of it. 

 

Those media companies absolutely have the money to pay every conference and every power school a reasonable payout that would keep the sport around. 

 

I've mentioned it in several articles recently and I'll do so again ... Out of the pac-12, there are 4 teams that will receive B1G dollars (60-70 mil) and there are 4 teams that will receive Big 12 dollars (30 mil). Cal and Stanford may be getting ACC dollars... 

 

Which all means that these schools are getting the money but there was no desire to keep the pac-12 alive. ESPN gave one bid and walked away without even trying to make a deal. Fox never wanted to make a deal. 

 

These media companies have set up college sports to fit their model and not the model for the fans or for the schools. 

 

The end of the era is coming... But it coming because two media companies want it and no one else. 

 

How Fox and ESPN Dismantled the Pac-12

FISHDUCK.COM

---

FOX and Disney/ESPN control virtually all of college sports. The Pac-12 has failed to make a deal with either of...

 

 

The ACC Is Next on the Chopping Block for Conference Realignment

FISHDUCK.COM

---

Last year I wrote an article about the Coming College Football Schism where there will be two conferences...

 

 

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. 

On 8/25/2023 at 6:40 AM, The Kamikaze Kid said:

Let's face it. Since Try Dye left, the D has been a major disappointment. Last year, Lanning found out that his complex defensive scheme was too complex for the players to absorb in one year and he had to simplify it and take many of the wrinkles out. He was also mostly working with guys that weren't brought in to run it.

 

This year, I think he's been able to expand the simplified system back to it's original complex state and is now working with a group of players that are the right type to run it. The turn around has the potential to be drastic and elevate the UO into playoff contention right away. But until we actually see some on field results, potential is all that it is.

 

I'm not going to hold it against people who want to see it before they believe it. However, I do think there is something to believe in this year.

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.  

On 8/23/2023 at 11:15 AM, noDucknewby said:

Couldn't have said it better.  Last year's D couldn't stop the rodents on a single drive in the 4th quarter when they were running every play and everyone knew it, WITH THE CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP ON THE LINE.  Same with the fusky game, one stop in the 4th quarter and we win that game, not to mention DL/KD probably don't go for it on 4th down around our own 30-yard line if they trust the defense to make a stop.

 

Maybe we can give them credit for a win in the Utah game, but IMO Cam Rising and his receivers had a terrible game.  The Autzen environment probably had a lot to do with that and we don't win that game in Rice-Eccles IMHO.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic as I always am (especially this time of year), but expecting a quantum leap in defense in year two may be a bit much to ask.

 

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.

On 8/19/2023 at 5:50 PM, Charles Fischer said:

The transcript of the Lanning press conference is a perfect example of why I don’t go to them anymore. A ton of coach speak, a ton of blah blah, where he tells you nothing, and then, in many cases, will issue questions back at the reporters.
 

You got very little from his answers. The offense did well at times, and the defense did well at times!

 

What revelations!

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.

On 8/18/2023 at 3:17 PM, GatOrlando said:

What pays for non revenue sports? It's great these kids are getting scholarships, all while getting to participate in an activity they excel at, and make lifelong connections with. But who pays for the scholarships, uniforms, facilities, whatever travel they do have to do? Who pays for the trainers, coaches, medical supplies, training facilities?

 

I'm not saying they don't matter, I love the fact that they exist. But is Chip Kelly going to take a pay cut, is he going to donate some of his salary to pay for these other sports. Pay the salaries of his fellow coaches? Is he gonna give up his private travel?

 

It's easy to say the right things, speak up for the little guy. But Chip Kelly left Oregon for the NFL. He left to get more money, enhance his legacy, chase a dream. So he can sit in his California mansion and millions of dollars in the bank. His kids future is secure, he's made it. Now he can wax philosophically, because he'll never have to eat out of a soup can again.

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.

On 8/4/2023 at 9:55 PM, Bruce3404 said:

They may get punched down a notch, but we were asking athletes and parents if traveling cross country 4-5 times a year was to their taste.  I’d like to see the 4 West Coast teams play one another every year.  That’s 3 games on the West Coast.  Then you split 6 more with the East Coast and then a home non-conference game and at least we’ll be in the close neighborhood for 7 games, maybe 8 if you schedule another clunker at home 

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!