Kurt Rambis

Some things are worth fighting over, getting upset about, or even getting annoyed about. Then there's this dreck.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you're saying Pepperdine needs to bring back our football team?

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.

Not that this gives anyone (including me) leave to start referencing politics on the board!

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...

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.

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.

I think I'm done trying to figure out where the Ducks will land, what makes a school attractive to a conference, etc. So much conflicting information, misinformation, talking hairdos guessing or coming out with hot takes, etc. If the Pac 10 dies, merges, steals other teams, has an "agreement" with another conference...if UCLA stays or goes...if Oregon stays or goes...hey, it's not like they're going to consult me for advice. And frankly, if they did, I haven't the faintest idea what I'd tell them.

There's a shload of that which goes on in the media. Gotta have a hot take, and it can't be hot if someone else already has it. At the same time, I look at last year with a win in Columbus and then a completely inexplicable loss to Stanford, coupled with other recent years where we destroy good teams and lose to some .500 outlier, and wonder...

Hmmm...they predict we win at WSU, beat Utah, beat BYU, beat UCLA...and then lose to Cal and OSU. Our reputation from the past few years precedes us...

Well, that didn't take long... Big 12, Pac-12 nix talks of potential merger or partnership with Big 12 still considering all options - CBSSports.com WWW.CBSSPORTS.COM The two leagues recently raided by the SEC and Big Ten, respectively, had been discussing numerous possibilities

What an absolute joke. Literally penalized for having reactions that are too quick. Imagine: You were the first one into the concert hall after the doors opened - sorry, you reacted too quickly, so you need to leave. New Hampshire's primary was the first in the US, so those votes don't count. No, you weren't offside, but you reacted too quickly after the ball was snapped, so we're giving the offense five yards and an automatic first down. You hit the game-winning bucket, but you left one-thousandth of a second on the clock when it left your hand so we're going to wave it off. Sheesh.

I always saw him (and still do) as basically a good dude. Job changes are not easy, particularly when you're jumping to a competitor. And to do it publicly must be brutal. How do you keep recruiting for Oregon, in case the Miami job falls through? How do you not outright lie to the media? (How many times have we heard "I've had no contact with that university!" and then two hours later the guy signs a contract?) When Slick Willie left, his players WANTED to play for MC. That says a lot. He may have shortcomings as a coaching strategist, but I bear him no ill will, and continue to respect him as a person. That's why I don't participate in a lot of the "trash Mario" stuff that comes up on the board. (Also because we have no idea how our current regime is at strategy and coaching tactics.) Yeah, it sucks to be someone's second choice, and the knee-jerk reaction is often, "I hope he flops over there" (which was my immediate reaction, to be honest). IMHO, I don't think MC deserves that.

Yep, my bad. So make that needing to avoid going 1 - 2.

I have to think it's BYU. I mean, assuming they don't have some inexplicable bonehead loss like Stanford last year. Almost everyone thinks Georgia is a loss, and a win would be just keeping it close. But if the Ducks start 0 - 2, especially with one loss coming in Autzen, that will be hard to recover from, both in public perception and in reality.

Would love to see the national stats, rather than just in the West.

The one caveat to this is that it's much easier to develop good technique and habits in a very young player than to fix problems in an older player. Nix was under other coaches, and Thompson and Butterfield were under Mari at Oregon. Moore is more of a blank slate.

Gotta say, the last thing I expected on this board today was a Doris Day reference. Now, pull out a Kitty Kallen song and I'll REALLY be impressed.