Jump to content
  • Finish your profile right here  and directions for adding your Profile Picture (which appears when you post) is right here.

Kurt Rambis

Moderator
  • Posts

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kurt Rambis

  1. I gave up panicking years ago. These are kids. Many will flip their commitments between now and signing day (including on signing day). Others will hit the transfer portal early (and maybe often). Some programs will have coaching turnover, a scandal, a horrible season, etc. and lots of their players will want an easy out. I find it likely we'll lose some recruits between now and signing day, gain others, etc. It used to be I'd give a huge sigh of relief on signing day (or be frustrated that some guy who looked like a recruit would flip to another school at the last second). Now with the transfer portal, it's the wild west all year 'round. Who thought we'd get DAT or Flowe unexpectedly? Who thought Dye would transfer or we'd lose that WR last year to Arizona? If I start worrying about any specific recruit or position group, I'm gonna be a mess. I love the sport, but no team is worth what tiny shred of mental stability I have left.
  2. I'm going to guess that the untimely passing of Spencer Webb had something to do with this - maybe feeling there was more availability in the TE room, more opportunity, etc.
  3. I actually really like the unis themselves - very clean. And what's wrong with "royalty"? The Huskies are sort of the Zara Tindall of college football - a nobody who is technically 20th in line to the British throne. (Which at least is better than being 20th in line to the bathroom.)
  4. It's such a different situation in basketball than in football (although some of that is changing with NIL and the portal). Each starter is 20% of the players out there in basketball, but 4.5% in football. Football players know they're somewhere in college for a couple of years at least, and there's no G League to run off to. Basketball seems to contribute more to a prima donna mentality than football. Basketball lends itself more to hero ball, because one superstar like LeBron truly can take a mediocre team to the finals, whereas a superstar like Dan Marino still needs a team around him. I'll take almost all the 5-stars we can get in football. In basketball, I'm with The Kamikaze Kid - give me five talented team-first guys who want to be here for 3 - 4 years over an all-star team any day.
  5. Yeah, and look at what most of these guys contributed to the program. Walker - almost nothing. King - not bad. Jabari Brown - nothing. Dante - not a ton so far; jury is still out. Troy Brown - pretty good for a year. Ware - TBD. Hairston - very solid. Evans - TBD. Cook - TBD. Bol - awesome for nine whole games. In other words, not a Ron Lee, Terrell Brandon, Jordan Bell, or Payton Pritchard in the bunch. It's just hard to get too excited about hoops recruits. The really good ones probably won't be here for long, don't pan out, or are prima donnas who want to leave the first time they hit a pothole on the way to the arena; the 4-stars and 3-stars probably will be here longer but don't tend to move the needle in fan excitement or get website headlines.
  6. Ah, gotcha. I don't think "regardless," I think it depends on the coaching succession. If a whole new staff comes in, then everything is likely out the window. If the HC leaves and the OC or DC takes over, and much of the staff is retained, then I can see the pipeline being maintained. I guess the one exception might be if the staff leaves but they already have some stars on the team - if those guys put up big numbers and get drafted high, I can see high schoolers looking at that and saying that team is a good one to go to. That could cause continuation of the pipeline. But if you have a bunch of stars in 2012, and then in 2016 you have a new group of stars under a different staff, my take on that is coincidence.
  7. Talking about the Beavers as "WR U" is sort of silly. Historically, sure, they've put some guys in the league (and good for them). But I don't recall any great successes of the current staff, and that's what matters. It's sort of like when announcers are saying stuff like "Arkansas' men's hoop team has never beaten San Diego State!" when they've played three times before and the most recent time was 1973. Yeah, that's an unbeatable trend right there...
  8. I pretty much see few reasons to criticize anyone for taking a different job. Now, there are some slimy ways to go about it (see: Taggart, Willie), but I'm sure all of us have departed one job for another at some point, without any members of the general public criticizing us for our decision. Could be preferring another part of the country. A more prestigious academic institution. Less influence from athletics. Better pay or benefits. Closer to family. Wanted to work at a private institution with no interference from the state. Just wanted a change or a new challenge. Good luck to him, and hopefully Oregon brings in a strong strategic leader.
  9. Canzano just reported he's out the door for Northwestern.
  10. One big difference is that those are long-term bluebloods, with a ton of success in years gone by. While it shouldn't, that does influence the talking heads. They can skate by on reputations. Oregon doesn't have that yet. If we had won in those two title game appearances, it would probably be a different story. I heard more than one comparison of Thibs to Dion Jordan. If Jordan hadn't been a gigantic bust, that would have been working in Thibs' favor, not against him. The media likes to take shortcuts. I remember hearing how Aaron Rodgers was dangerous to draft, because he came from Cal, and Kyle Boller had been a bust - therefore, QBs from Cal would be busts. It's incredibly lazy reporting, but having dealt closely with the media for 30+ years, I know how much lazy reporting there is out there.
  11. Some things are worth fighting over, getting upset about, or even getting annoyed about. Then there's this dreck.
  12. That list really shows how hard it is to develop QBs. How many underwhelming players and outright busts in the NFL were produced by those top 5 programs that were still listed as "notable": Landry Jones, Harrington, Tua, Sanchez, Baker Mayfield, Brian Brohm, etc. Out of the 24 QBs listed, probably 5 can be considered stars (Herbert, Carson Palmer, Lamar Jackson, and maybe Kyler Murray and Mac Jones). The rest were short-term backups (Dixon, Brohm) or mediocre players (Leinart, Bradford, Bridgewater). Given the poor success rate, can anyone be considered QB U?
  13. I think the problem existed before MC. While the Ducks have produced some great pros (Herbert, Chung, Unger, Alonso, Buckner, Armstead), many of our high profile, 1st round draft choices are largely considered busts: Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Dion Jordan, and largely Marcus Mariota. Even Sewell struggled the first half of his rookie season before settling down. Smith and Harrington were drafted by franchises that have ruined most of the QBs they've had, but even so, they're considered high first round busts. When we have more Herberts and fewer Harringtons, we'll probably have more buy-in from the media and more belief in the players coming out. Hopefully Thibs contributes mightily toward that.
  14. Charles, it seems to me that the overall viewpoint is...neither. For most people, they don't offend. But they often don't particularly inspire, either. They're part of the game atmosphere like the fans and the band, and almost everyone here seems to think there's nothing wrong with including some tasteful cheerleader photos (I assume all photos on here will be tasteful; we don't particularly need to see a gruesome injury or some drunk fan barfing in the parking lot). But relatively few will be bothered if there aren't any. So it sounds like it's entirely up to you, and that most of us won't be particularly bothered one way or the other.
  15. IMHO, as long as the pictures themselves are reasonable (e.g. not revealing cleavage shots), if anyone is truly offended by seeing pictures of women who choose to work hard to be on the sidelines of every game, encouraged by the university, then those readers have the right to be offended and not read that article, or not use this site - the same way any of us can depart if we're offended that you won't allow posts about religion or politics. Cheerleading is hard. At the high school level, according to the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research, cheerleading has the highest rate of catastrophic injuries of any sport or activity - more catastrophic injuries per 100,000 participants than football or hockey. A high school cheerleader has a chance of catastrophic injury that is 35 times higher than a high school basketball player. So these are far more than pretty girls in skimpy outfits - they are female athletes (not to mention the males who participate as well). Maybe they're not working at an activity some of us particularly value, but that doesn't minimize the risks they take or they work they put in to be there. As such, how is seeing pictures of cheerleaders any different from seeing pictures of a beach volleyball team or a swim team? Or sometimes even a tennis team? Competitive swimsuits for both male and female athletes leave far less to the imagination than do most cheerleading outfits. If you decide not to have cheerleaders on the site, I won't be offended. But they are part of the game, the same way the stadium, fans, the opponent, referees, players, injuries, and coaches are part of the game. So incorporating some shots of cheerleaders is, to me, a perfectly natural part of the game. As such, it is perfectly natural to have them on the site.
  16. I think everyone loves to find a good bargain, whether it's a great wine that's also inexpensive, a bargain air fare to someplace fun, or a Patrick Chung or Justin Herbert who comes out of nowhere to be a star. But the reality is that the reason we love that is it's so rare. The simple fact is that the "hit rate" is far higher among 5 star players than among 4 star; among 4 star players than among 3 star, etc. The bargain approach is why I don't dismiss recruits who are only three stars - I figure the coaches know a lot more than I do and see a hidden gem, a great leader, a perfect scheme fit, etc. But I also know that if we want to compete with Ohio State and Alabama, we have to have the players to do so - and the percentages are simply much greater with higher-rated players. They're higher rated for a reason.
  17. My biggest fear about the Ducks' season is that we'll waste a year finding out that Nix pretty much is who he showed he was at Auburn. Are Butterfield or Thompson ready? No idea. But if we don't have a reliable QB1, this season is toast before it begins. I'd rather have growing pains with one of the young guys and have a great QB for late in the season and next year, than spend much of the year watching Nix implode and then switching to one of the younger QBs when it's too late. Maybe Nix will start and be terrific. I just fear otherwise given what he's shown in his career thus far.
  18. Is there such thing as a Freudian typo? Because with all the rumors about four more schools going to the B1G, four going to the Big 12, etc. - we may just end up with the PAC-1.
  19. So you're saying Pepperdine needs to bring back our football team?
  20. No matter what happens this year or next, does anyone think that will be the end? When do athletes demand a share of revenues, as is already happening in the B10? When do conferences start weeding out "weaker sisters" like Rutgers or Ol' Miss? When do schools start chopping non-revenue-producing sports? When do less elite programs like UNLV or Washington State drop football entirely, or drop down to DII? What other schools will make a big announcement in a year or two, because someone lures them in? Could Baylor join the SEC? Could Florida State? Could Clemson figure a way to join the B10? USC and UCLA jumping ship was unthinkable, just like UT and Oklahoma going to the SEC. What else will happen that we are not even considering today - Congress getting involved? Stanford just dropping sports? Notre Dame forming a new conference with Oregon, Washington, Clemson, Miami, Oklahoma State, etc.? Alabama leaving the SEC for the B10 after getting a huge payday? Nothing will surprise me anymore.
  21. Not that this gives anyone (including me) leave to start referencing politics on the board!
  22. How long do you all think it will be until weaker, less valuable members of various conferences start being invited to leave? Teams that don't come from huge media markets, like Kentucky or Iowa? I don't know how this would work legally (and I assume it varies with each conference agreement), but rather than just expanding, will Ol' Miss be asked to depart, while Washington (with a larger media market) gets invited in? Will Iowa State get tossed in favor of Arizona State? Sadly, it wouldn't even be based on performance; Rutgers and Vanderbilt would probably stick around because their markets have TV HH. I'm just wondering whether that will be the next shoe to drop...
  23. I keep hearing how USC and UCLA will struggle to compete in the Big10. While I fully agree with that (especially for UCLA), it's pretty obvious at this point that the people who are making those decisions do not have that at the top of priority list. It's all about the money. If UCLA can get $80 million annually, they'll be happy to be 5 - 7 after barely squeaking by Maryland. They'll take that over being 9 - 3 in the Pac-12 at $30 million annually without the slightest hesitation. Maybe they'll delude themselves that with a new coach they can successfully compete (and go through that cycle every few years), or maybe they'll just enjoy the income and let losing take its course - the Vanderbilt model.
  24. When public money is involved, and when the governor is the head of the board of regents, it's kind of hard to keep the two entirely separate.
×
×
  • Create New...
Top