Grandpa Duck

The arguments made by Charles and HDuck are based on the concept that the team that played the playoff game or bowl game from which some portion of the proceeds were paid to the conference. earned those proceeds by themself. If only USC left the conference should they have continued to share in the bowl and playoff proceeds for many years thereafter? If you look carefully at my post above you will see that I wrote "earned" in quotation marks. That is because I anticipated the subsequent arguments and meant that it is not the individual team that played the game that earned (deserves) the proceeds but the entire conference. The team that played in the playoff game or bowl game would not have been in that game if it were not a member of the conference at the time they were chosen. The bowl bids in particular belong to the conference, by written contract with the bowl. That chosen team that played the game, in every case, belonged to the PAC-12 with a reputation gained by decades of performance by all of the teams in the conference and therefore garnered the bowl bid or playoff placement in large part because they belonged to the conference. Even today playoff bids consider the conference reputations and histories in being parceled out. It only makes sense that if you leave the conference you leave the proceeds of the bowl games and playoff games that are paid over several years behind. This argument will not end with this post or this thread. But the reality is that the legal argument is long since over and OSU and WSU are the indisputable winners of that contest.

This thread has wandered far from the original topic. My response here to that original topic is tardy because I have been away from my desk. I considered starting a separate topic to give what needs to be said more prominence than this statement will receive at the end of this already way off topic threat. If Charles wants to move it to a separate topic, so be it. Even so, the other side of Judge Gary Libey’s ruling deserves to be told. The reason Judge Libey’s decision was not appealed by OBD and the other departing schools from the PAC-12 is really very simple. The departing schools would have lost the appeal. They did not leave multi-millions of dollars behind without good reason. I say this as an attorney who practiced over 50 years, much of that practice being in the Oregon State appellate courts and the United States appellate courts. The departing schools never had a case. There are two reasons supporting this opinion. First, the one Judge Libey states in his opinion, that after USC and UCLA gave notice that they were leaving the PAC-12 the remaining ten teams voted to strip those two teams of their voting rights. There is a principle in the law called estoppel. A party cannot take contradictory positions on the same issue. In short, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. OBD and the other nine schools voted that USC and UCLA lost their voting rights upon their notice of departure from the PAC-12. When OBD gave notice of their own departure from the conference they no longer had a right to vote on conference matters. Second, in 2023 the PAC-12 Bylaws stated that upon “notice of withdrawal” from the conference the departing school would “automatically cease to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors” and lose all voting rights. Bylaws are made by the Board of Directors. In short, you made your bed so now you will lie in it. Quoted from “AI Mode”: “In the legal battle over the Pac-12 Conference's future, Whitman County Superior Court Judge Gary Libey ruled in November 2023 that Oregon State (OSU) and Washington State (WSU) are the sole governing members of the Pac-12 board of directors. This decision was a critical victory for the two remaining schools, granting them control over the conference's governance and assets as the other 10 members departed. Key Details of the Ruling Board Control: Judge Libey determined that because the 10 other schools (Arizona, ASU, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah, and Washington) provided notice of withdrawal, they forfeited their right to vote on the board. Financial Assets: The ruling gave OSU and WSU control over hundreds of millions in conference assets, which they intended to use to rebuild the league. Protection for Departing Schools: While losing voting power, the departing schools were still allowed to participate in board meetings to offer input and ensure they were "treated fairly" regarding their final year in the conference. Reasoning: Libey famously stated, "Conduct is what counts and words don't so much," referencing how the conference had previously stripped voting rights from USC and UCLA when they first announced their departure for the Big Ten.” You can argue forever that because OSU and WSU did not contribute much to the incoming funds from past conference playoff results principles of equity require that the schools that “earned” those funds on the playing fields and courts deserve to share in them. That argument will always fail when confronted with written Bylaws and your own contrary behavior. Just for a moment, difficult as it may be, put yourself in the posture of the remaining two schools. How much money would it take for you to be where they are, with two years of no scheduled conference games other than one another, and half empty stadiums and arenas? Add in where they will be, with a new conference of teams with far lesser reputation than they were accustomed to having. Most certainly, had OBD been left behind, you would expect to have the money that the law states the remaining schools are entitled to have, and as they currently expect to have. In the opinion of this writer, they deserve it.

Just got around to reading Jon’s outstanding article, loaded with apt historical analogies. Thanks for the entertaining read.

Jon, factoring in what Indiana built in one season is not possible. The issue is not predictability. It’s fairness. Under present rules, where a coach like Cignetti can take his whole team from one conference to another, even Rutgers can win the B1G. What happened for Indiana fans, and may still be happening, gives hope to the least successful programs. I only want the schedule to provide every school the same opportunity. The conferences control the schedule, but not much else.

GatOrlando I'm having a problem wrapping my brain around four five-team pods, assuming the B1G expands to 20 teams. I expect that expansion to happen. I have this old-fashioned idea that to have a fair regular season every team in a division or pod, if you will, should play the same teams in a round-robin format. How do your pods address that standard?

For years the NCAA has suffered from insufficient funds to properly enforce its rules. The schools that make up the NCAA are the problem. Until the schools provide an adequate funding budget, and a procedure for enforcement that leads to application of the penalty quickly, say 90 days, the NCAA will continue to be disrespected.

I am well aware that many here are not fans of sportswriter John Canzano. Regardless, if you want to gain a better appreciation of Dan Lanning as a recruiter, read Canzano’s column issued today shortly after noon.

Only one thing will prevent OBD from being national champs. That is failure to protect Dante Moore. When he was not protected last year everything went sideways. If it takes a full house backfield to protect him that’s what must happen. With our receivers Dante can find them through double coverage, but only if he’s focused on them. When he is distracted by onrushing defense we’re toast.

Jon, I take the "Cig lead" and Penn State "bust" into account by adjusting the Divisions every two years. What bothers me most about Divisions is that one of the primary benefits of belonging to a Conference like the B1G is playing against the best teams in the country like Ohio State, Michigan and Indiana. My current thinking about the first two years of Divisions in the B1G puts those three teams in the East. May have to reconsider that.

Jon, I started with two threads from a couple of weeks ago where posters were complaining about unfairness of next year's BiG schedule. That's all I am addressing. I have no purpose whatsoever to make college football teams equal, or even equitable. I know the playoff format is all screwed up and there is nothing we fans can do about that. I'm not even going to try. All I want to do is have the football teams in the B1G all begin the season from the same starting line. I have made a list of B1G teams as they finished, first through eighteenth, over the last two seasons. That whole list will be in the next article I write on this topic. Here are the top eight from the list and the teams from that top eight they are scheduled to play this year: 1. Indiana Ohio State, Michigan and USC 2. Oregon USC, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan, 3. Ohio State Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, USC, Oregon, Michigan 4. Iowa Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois 5. Michigan Iowa, Penn State, Indiana, Oregon, Ohio State 6. Illinois Ohio State, Oregon, Iowa 7. USC Oregon, Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana 8. Penn State USC, Michigan (Note: in making the above list I'm working with a difficult block schedule that has only the team logos, and I'm very human.) I doubt that any serious fan of the B1G would argue that those eight are, at least, among the top ten teams going into the 2026 season. You tell me, Jon, would two Divisions playing round-robin be more fair than Ohio State playing six of the top eight teams in the conference? As things are in College football, I would not change a thing about recruiting, the portal, or NIL. With Dan Lanning as our coach, the Duck facilities and Division Street providing the money, OBD are near the top in opportunity to make the playoffs. But if I were a coach in the B1G, I would much rather be Penn State playing two teams from the top eight than the schedule of Ohio State playing six teams from the top eight. Or do you want to be Michigan playing teams 1-4 plus Penn State? All I want is scheduling fairness, and next year's B1G schedule doesn't make the cut.

I'm not wild about Conference Championships either, now that OBD have one. But my actual purpose here is to appeal to the powers of the conference to schedule fairly, and those powers are accustomed to having a Conference Champion. It may be that giving them an easy route to retain that historic honor will make it simpler to schedule fairly.

I need to better understand what you are saying, Duckman60 and Canvasback. Does your cross-division 1 plays two determine a Conference Champion? If yes, please explain who is the champion if both the #1 teams win.

Canvasback, you and I are on the same track for a workable two-Division structure without expanding the conference. Upon reading Jon Joseph's first response, #2 above, I had the same idea when he spoke of a flex-schedule at the end of the season. With nine teams in a Division, after the eight game round-robin, the ninth game would be against a team from the other Division, with the opponent based on standings after the eight games. I have a different take on home field. In the next article I willl propose that for the final game, in odd years. the home field is in the east and even years the home field is in the west. That will allow for schools to plan and sell tickets in advance for the final game. They will know the day and place, and the opponent will be determined the on the standings after eight conference games. Teams will know that they are going to travel, they just will not know for sure where. Ties within the Division would be broken in the usual way, with head to head deciding. A three way tie would be broken by comparison of results with other teams in the Division. For example if one of the three beat #1, that team would win the top place in the tie, and so forth. And, the conference champion will be the winner of #1 in the east vs. #1 in the west. This is a change that could be put in place for 2027, without waiting for a conference expansion. And, Jon, you underestimate us humans when you say that in-conference scheduling cannot be fair. I agree that computers are not the answer. Computers are no better than the humans that invented them, and in many respects not as good. We are getting closer to fair scheduling just by making proposals and discussing them.

Two things, conference expansion and playoff scheduling. Maybe it makes sense for the B1G to announce that in 2030 the conference will expand to 20 teams and thereafter there will be no further consideration of expanding. They could even name teams they are considering and include Notre Dame along with five or six others. Then the Irish will be presented with a now or never decision. To me, allowing the playoff committee and the bowls to impact matters beyond their primary objective, like scheduling, is nonsense. The conferences could just tell them: "We are available to begin playoff games on January 1, 2025, a Friday and you, playoff committees and bowl committees, arrange your schedules accordingly with games on that day and the next. No games more than eight days apart." As it is now, the tail is wagging the dog.

Go thoughts, Feather. I miss playing Cal and Stanford. I wonder whether the experience that schools in the B1G before bringing in OBD, fuskies, UCLA and USC are having with the expanded conference as is would cause them to object to two more from the west coast.

Predictably, Jon Joseph presents some enticing arguments that provoked my mind to consider different directions for reply. That’s a good thing. It is exactly what I hoped for while writing the article, and more. Jon does not really ATFQ of which two schools the B1G should consider for expansion because he gives us six! And not two divisions, but three. I struggle to understand how three divisions with four cross-over games can ever be symmetrical. Of necessity, there is no way the teams will be playing comparable opponents in the cross-over games. The Socratic question to you, Jon, is: “How is that symmetrical?” Hence, is it fair? I have considered the flex schedule at the end of the regular season before, but Jon gave me a new twist that I will address in the next article. Hint, maybe there is a way for the B1G to achieve symmetry with only 18 teams and not expand. Thanks for that. Notre Dame is an obvious candidate for expansion. Charles and I have discussed this possibility and he believes that the Irish broadcasting deal with CBS will keep them independent. More to discuss there.

iubhounds, you piqued my interest a couple of weeks ago with the thread you began titled: "Having to Fly East for Games". That caused me to really think about scheduling. I hope to say more about that topic in the near future. Like you, when ASU and Arizona took the PAC from 10 to 12 I was concerned that it was a mistake. There may be an answer for us "old school" curmudgeons. I'm working on it. As to Moos, I lived in Salem when he was hired as the Duck AD. He came there for "Oregon Club". I knew immediately that he was not a good fit for OBD.

Beat me by one point!

Seahawks win 27-14 2 to 3 sacks 238 yds

Bringing in a new DC or OC means that person would bring changes in the plays and systems that players and other coaches would need to learn. As it is OBD hit the ground running the day after Indiana ended their playoff run. There’s always room for improvement. What Lanning chose to do allows for growth without disruption.

There are only four west coast teams that deserve to be in one of the major football conferences, and UCLA is marginal. OBD have been outstanding the first two years. It certainly does not appear that the Ducks are at some huge scheduling disadvantage as proven by results. The earth rotates from west to east, and time zones with us behind will always mean our games in the east will sometimes be early. But, we can and do practice in the morning to accommodate the clock adjustment. Most of the TV viewers are in the east, so playing there gets OBD more exposure and better recruits. Do teams win more games coming off a bye? I think that the opposite is the case. Upsets after a bye always garner the “rusty” excuse. We’re one of the new kids in the B1G, so favored treatment is not to be expected. If you must complain about scheduling, at least provide some evidence of damages.

JDuck beat me to it. OBD win the NC!

While we’re enjoying going to the fridge at home, or a nice clean bathroom at home during the break, those in Hard Rock paid as much as $3600 for a seat where thet don’t have nearly the view we have for free (assuming you’re paying for cable regardless of football coverage).

Bronco the "stepping stone" question was a small part of a much bigger question. Mario answered the bigger part of the question and ignored the stepping stone part.

And I happen to believe it makes no sense for him or OBD. If he went out now he'd be down the list of draftees, maybe 8-12. The Ducks have had lots of QB's go much higher. Harrington went to Detroit and got the hell beat out of him. Mariota went to Tennessee and got the hell beat out him. Hubert went to the Chargers and is still getting the hell beat out of him. However Nix, who was farther down the list, went to Denver and is doing great. I expect that Moore will have a tough battle to be the starter. Better for him if he loses.