Kurt Rambis

I keep reading about needing to include certain schools (SJSU, SDSU, Houston, etc.) because of the size of the media markets. Broadcasters don't care about the size of a market - they care about eyeballs on screens. Long Beach State, UC Irvine, and Loyola Marymount are all right in the middle of Los Angeles just like UCLA is - but they don't pull a fraction of the viewership for MBB that the Bruins do. So Fox and ESPN don't care about them, or about Cal Baptist, Pepperdine (as much as it hurts me to say that), CSUN, etc. Notre Dame is in a tiny media market, but they pull eyeballs nationally. That's what matters. Even for recruiting, I'm not sure how important it would be to have SDSU so we have a "presence" in the SoCal market. The Pac 12 has no presence in TX, FL, MD, or anywhere other than CA, UT, WA, OR, and AZ, and yet look at how many high-level recruits we're pulling in from outside of those states. In today's world, the only thing that matters is what schools can we be in a conference with that will bring the most TV dollars. That's it. Nothing else matters - tradition, rivalries, recruiting, weather, sports other than CFB and MBB, uniform colors, travel, or anything else. Find where we can bring in the most TV dollars, and figure out everything else to make it work. That's the bottom line, whether we like it or not (and I certainly don't like it).

The only thing that scares me about being in a weaker conference is not being able to keep up with the Alabamas and Ohio States financially. The Pac 12 has been perceived as a weaker conference for some time, and if any Pac 12 team had managed to go undefeated, they would have been in the playoffs without question. The ACC isn't exactly a juggernaut conference, and look how often Clemson has been there. Heck, look at Cincinnati. This will be even more true if the playoffs expand to 8 or 12 teams; even weaker conferences will get invites, just like we've seen teams like BYU and Boise State make noise on the national stage historically. It's all about the final record. Going undefeated in the Big 10 or SEC is extremely difficult, and will be even more so if they start to get rid of teams like Maryland and Kentucky in favor of better programs like USC or Oregon. Of course, I'm saying all of this knowing what CFB has been over the past 20 years. Only God knows what it will be like over the coming decade, and so far, He has stayed pretty quiet on the issue.

Gonna respectfully disagree, Daze. Playing time will trump everything else when it comes to the opportunity to get drafted, even in a lower round. How many big school backups have we seen drafted, versus how many kids who did really well at smaller schools (e.g. New Mexico, Western Michigan, LA Tech)? If Winston had put out a lot of film already and wanted to finish up at Oregon, that might be one thing - but he really has little playing time so far. I would think transferring to UNLV or Bowling Green and being a stand-out starter putting out a lot of film would give him a much better chance than playing 10% of the snaps at a school like Oregon. I would also think a rebuilding program like Arizona would be excited to have him, and he'd have a much better chance of starting there than in Eugene.

I remember when full free agency came to the NFL. I figured my days as a serious NFL fan were probably numbered. I was used to seeing guys like Mean Joe Greene and Jack Lambert play their whole careers for my favorite team; now I thought it'll just be a turnstile of random players coming through for a few years and then moving on. And that's largely what it has been; every year my Steelers lose players I liked to free agency, while picking up one-year or two-year rentals. And yet I'm still a huge Steelers fan. I pull for the team more than I do for individual players. I hate losing guys I enjoyed watching, but it is what it is, and sometimes new guys we get make the team more fun. I'm guessing it'll end up being the same with the Ducks. It'll be different, but they're still the green-and-yellow (or black, or pink, or grey...). And although I don't much like the changes we're seeing in college football (You dang kids - get off my lawn!), I'll still enjoy watching them play Clemson for the ACC championship, or whatever the heck we'll be doing in a few years...

I'm doubting he'd want to spend his last year in college football backing up a star, and it's not like he's going to start over Sewell. If he's smart, he goes someplace where there's a need and a ready opportunity. If he were transferring as a sophomore, I could definitely see this. Not as a fifth-year senior.

...is that it never stops. When college football had a strong central overseer (the NCAA), stability ruled. How we have NIL, the transfer portal, Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, USC and UCLA to the Big 10, etc. And no matter what things look like in 2022 or 2024, they probably will not look like that in 2028 or 2030. Imagine... ...the SEC realizes that Vanderbilt brings nothing to the table. The Big 10 feels the same way about Rutgers. Both are tossed from their leagues. ...Amazon decides to jump in to college football with both feet, and Bezos makes Knight look like a pauper. Amazon arranges a new conference with current stepchildren like Oklahoma State and Oregon - and then steals Penn State from the Big 10, Clemson from the ACC, and LSU from the SEC. Think they couldn't do that with their billions? ...schools start realizing that while they can pay these travel expenses for football, they can't for women's soccer and men's gymnastics. New leagues spring up for individual sports, like they already exist in men's volleyball (Penn State plays in the same conference as Harvard and Sacred Heart; Ohio State in the same conferences as Lindenwood and Quincy; UCLA in the same conference with Pepperdine and Grand Canyon). ...the SEC gets really aggressive and steals Ohio State and Michigan from the Big 10, or the Big 10 manages to take Georgia and Missouri from the SEC. All out war! ...Congress gets involved. God help us all. So no matter how things shake out this year or in 2024, don't worry - things will change. And probably sooner rather than later. With no overseer, it's every school and every conference for itself. I won't be at all surprised to see Stanford or Vandy drop football entirely, WSU and OSU go to a lower division, conferences jettison schools, new conferences formed, conferences raid each other for members, lawsuits, new media players, etc. It's just getting started...

Re-opening his recruitment. Five-star Mookie Cook decommits from Oregon 247SPORTS.COM Late Wednesday night five-star small forward Mookie Cook dropped a bit of a bomb. Ranked No. 5 overall by 247Sports in the...

Holy %^*& USC, UCLA looking to leave Pac-12 for Big Ten in 2024, though deal not yet finalized - CBSSports.com WWW.CBSSPORTS.COM A second round of power conference realignment in as many years may be about to begin

Both coaching and playing are "What have you done for me lately?" Mark Helfrich, Ed Orgeron, Chip Kelly in Philly, Doug Pederson in Philly, Frank Vogel with the Lakers...the list goes on and on.

If we think these coaches are such fantastic recruiters, I think we have to trust them on who they are trying to recruit. Some guys may be lower-level guys who coaches think are raw but with a ton of potential, locker room leaders, HS teammates or relatives of someone they really want, glue guys, or perfect scheme fits. Would we rather have had Mariota and Herbert, or most of the guys who were higher-ranked QBs when we got them?

Great to have your content on the site, LaMarr - thanks for the article!

Honestly, I don't put a lot of importance on in-state recruiting. Why is some kid from Oregon more important or desirable than an equally talented kid from Missouri or New Hampshire or Arkansas? Sure, there's more opportunity for the brand to make an impression on an in-state kid, and some want to stay close to home so the family can see them play or they can easily hang out with friends on weekends or whatever. But I'm sure some want to experience different weather, be away from family or maybe negative influences in their lives, try something different, etc. And as David Marsh pointed out, he's built a long-term relationship with other coaches, whereas Lanning is a newcomer to him. I want the best players for the program, and next year if we get 10 five-stars that are good fits and they all come from Vermont, that's just fine with me.

I've wondered the same thing a couple of times. The great part about that is if you (or I, or anyone else) go over the line a bit, all we get is a hidden post and a note from Charles explaining what went wrong. It's only the constant, repeat offenders or those who decide to go nuclear and strafe a moderator or Charles who end up without milk and cookies at break time (or permanently). And we don't need those folks in the sandbox anyway.

When it comes to Oregon football, I feel much the same way. I did not attend UO, so I do not have the hatred some people on this board have for UW, OSU, or even USC (my dad was a Trojan alumnus). In all honesty, sometimes the vitriol directed at those programs bothers me a bit, as I don't share it. But then as a life-long Steelers fan I think about how much I've despised the Raiders, Bengals, and Ravens at various times; as a Pepperdine grad, I think about our long-standing rivalry with Loyola Marymount and how much I couldn't stand some of their basketball players and fans. So while with the Ducks I don't share it, I get it!

I see where you're coming from - if your football program has never had a 1,000 rusher, maybe you celebrate the guy who got 750 yards. Still, I tend to think of a Hall of Fame as being for those with truly outstanding accomplishments - the superstars, not the stars. At the same time, the Jacksonville Jaguars and Arizona Cardinals both have a ring of honor, so I'm guessing I'm in the minority among sports fans.

And I'll admit that in my own personal opinion, a few of the rules here lean a bit toward the restrictive. HOWEVER, with probably every site I'm on, every church I've attended, every company I've done business with, every boss I've worked for, and every candidate I've voted for, there's something I can disagree with or where I think they're too restrictive or too permissive. This is a private forum. The owner of the forum invests substantial time, energy, and money in keeping it up and running. He sets the rules. And if I want to participate, I follow those rules. I'm immensely grateful for all of the effort and resources that go into it, from Charles, from moderators, and from those posting articles. Really, that's not hard to understand - at least for those of us who continue to use this forum. If I have a few piddling things I don't necessarily agree with, I still find it immeasurably superior to what the O-Live forum used to be, where pretty much anything went and trolls ruled the pages. So I have no pity for those who cannot or will not follow the rules. They were given multiple chances. And I don't feel bad for those who choose to leave the forum because it's "too restrictive." There are lots of other places to post and read, and finding the right fit for what you want to do is important. Just like I don't object if a business requires masks to enter, allows smoking (where legal), requires formal attire, or makes any other decision - if I like their requirements overall, it's a pleasure being there. If I don't like their requirements, I can take my business someplace else. All in all, I like the requirements here, will do my best to support them, and will not gripe about any of the rules I might not have if it were my site. If I want things 100% my way, I can always start my own forum. Glad you're back, chrisjenn99. And like you, I'm grateful I don't have to put up with ignorant trolls, because like you, I've not always reacted well on other sites.

Some really enlightening information on recruiting and early scholarship offers: Early Recruiting | Understanding Early Scholarship Offers WWW.NCSASPORTS.ORG Early recruiting is on the rise, with middle schoolers getting scholarship offers. For recruits at any age, it's important to know...

Ernie Kent? I thought it was the Oregon Hall of Fame, not the Oregon Hall of Pretty Good.

Yeah, but they've already phased that out in large parts of the country (the more popular parts), and under EU pressure the countries that have the Golden Visa are going to phase it out completely.

Well, as someone who lives in Portugal, I can tell you it's not the cheapest place in the world to live, but it's generally cheaper than the US, and I'm sure it's a whole lot nicer than Eritrea or Syria or South Crapistan or wherever actually is the cheapest place. In general, life here is about 57 cents on the dollar compared to the US. And if you stay out of the two big cities (Lisboa and Porto), it's cheaper than that. I get a latte for about a buck, pay the housekeeper about six buck an hour, and just paid about $100 to put two new front tires on the car at the dealership. So yeah, it has its advantages (including living income-tax-free for ten years). Plus I can catch spam on OBD Forum in the middle of the night for you all, so you don't have to see it.

I think this year's team may be harder to project that almost any other I remember. New staff, new systems for every position group, new backfield, etc. The wildcard will be QB play. If one of the QBs emerges as a clear starter and plays at a high level, I could see a one-loss season. If Nix is our starter, I'm concerned that some killer picks could undermine otherwise good games for the team. If it's Thompson or Butterfield, inexperience could kill us against a team like Utah or BYU. If we're switching out QBs like we did a couple of years ago, or have an entrenched starter who's merely OK, I could see a three or four loss season.

Just the headline quoting "NCAA Enforcement" makes me laugh. Are you sure this wasn't published by The Onion?

If it helps, Charles, I've never thought of you as Stalin. Idi Amin or Pol Pot, sure, but Stalin? Nah.

I always have mixed emotions when we lose a transfer, a coach, a recruit, etc. and there are a lot of comments along the lines of "He wasn't that great anyway" or "We're better off without him." On one hand, in any given situation, those comments may be entirely true. I know nothing about this guy, so observations here that he is or could be a flake, locker room cancer, me-first, etc. might be 100% on point. On the other hand, I know fans tend to do a lot of revisionist history. We salivate over possibly getting a particular player or coach, rejoice like heck when we get that person, and then when something happens and that person doesn't come on board (or we never get him in the first place), out come the comments about how we're better off without him anyway and we never really wanted him. It's similar to controversial players: a guy like Draymond Green or Vontaze Burfict plays for our team and we vociferously defend all his actions - then he signs elsewhere and suddenly he's a dirty player and should be suspended for everything. The question I have is if the Ducks are better off without Johnson, why did Altman try so hard to get him to sign in the first place?

How that one didn't make it into our recent discussion on the world's most beautiful cars, I don't know. There's a Bentley dealer here in town (not bad for a place with 170,000 people) - maybe I'll drive the little C1 over there and see what they'll give me for a trade-in.