CalBear95

It wasn’t. That scene (IMHO) gets Grinch fired this week. That said, Riley has - as others have posted elsewhere - been loyal to Grinch to the point of nepotism. If Grinch is kept on, I just can’t imagine how USC gets up for the game. That team, and specifically Williams, has to be emotionally spent.

Here is where I get nervous: the UW loss was so bad Riley has to fire Grinch and the USC D responds with an inspired performance. Their D has quit on Grinch. I hope Riley keeps him for at least one more game.

That's pretty cool. I'm thinking of posting on my thoughts on how the BIG could guarantee at least 3 CFP invites by snagging Cal and Stanford but sticking to this measure of conf strength. I think a formula assigning points to every team a conference lands in the T25 might help offer at least one measure. My formula is as follows: (25 - ranking) + 1. For example, being #1 is 25 points: (25 - 1) + 1. Being #25 is 1 point: (25-25) + 1. Using the list above: SEC: 86 pts [Georgia: #1 (25 pts) - Alabama: #5 (21 pts) - Tennessee: #6 (20 pts) - LSU: #16 (10 pts) - Miss State: #20 (6 pts) - South Carolina: #23 (3 pts) - Texas: #25 (1 pt)] BIG: 112 points [Michigan: #3 (23 pts) + Ohio State: #4 (22 pts) + Penn State: #7 (19 pts) + Washington: #8 (18 pts) + USC: #12 (14 pts) - Oregon: #15 (11 pts) - UCLA: #21 (5 pts)] BIG is stronger than the SEC by this measure.

When I read the articles about USC singling out the Ducks for exclusion I had several reactions: 1) Shock/disbelief 2) Not shocked/surprised 3) Appalled 4) Vindication (I never bought the 'if they wanted the Ducks they would have taken them..' blah blah blah!) 5) Judgmental thinking about USC Seeing all the posts from Charles on the content being generated on the USC boards only reinforced all of the above. What didn't hit me until today is that the BIG had to have hated that information seeing the light of day. And if the reporting is to be believed, I can't believe BIG tacitly agreed to USC's request. Because that is the definition of anticompetitive predatory behavior. And USC has just opened the door to a ton of lawsuits against themselves and the BIG. The entire CFP format was created with an extreme sensitivity to this very issue. And USC just came out and said, 'let me use the BIG's market power to crush Oregon.' I think this is why USC has gone above beyond about how 'excited' they are (their fanbase hasn't got the message just yet and are gleefully saying the quiet parts way out loud) . I would be surprised if we don't see lawsuits stemming from this OR if they stem from a tangential issue for this to be offered up as evidence of intent. So, I can't imagine the BIG's lawyers were in any way pleased the story came out (and probably more so that the old regime was foolish enough to participate).

I have been wondering if the Apple model gets used here to generate the revenue needed to make this work. As a pure play it's risky but as a supplement...?

Are you currently using a service like Azure?

I took a break from posting as I needed a time out but this is a question I care about deeply. Yes. Most of this is covered in Charles' post but my take is... 1) Own the major west coast markets 2) Logistics/better travel 3) My own selfish interests 4) My arrogance - we don't culturally fit in the MWC 5) We do culturally fit in the BIG 6) Keeps Olympic sports alive 7) Maintains the best under the radar rivalry with UW in rowing - two perennial top 3 programs. The fall of the PAC hurts my heart in so many ways. I logically get the 'why' but a chunk of my fondest memories as a kid and my 20s are now reduced to wistful nostalgia.

Saw an interesting take from Forbes on a super conference but it goes in a different direction Forbes suggests the PAC stay smallish (not the size of regional teams listed in your idea…that’s step 2) and get a 5 year deal. Then, in the interim, the ACC and PAC find a merger model for a bi-coastal conference. The writer suggests some teams are likely shed in the process (but not definitely) Given the magnitude of the value of such a pairing (all four time zones and premium markets in all), the ACC contract becomes easier to manage The 5 years between a new rights deal gives enough time to solve. IDK if it’s at all feasible but I like the idea. ESPN had an article about the PAC that I think is largely right, namely that the BIG will eventually come for Oregon and UW (w/in next 5 years which will always leave the conference a little unstable) A pairing with a higher value group of markets (ACC) probably fixes a lot of that Anyhow, all speculation which is why this is fun for us and probably nerve wracking for people like GK Glad I don’t have his job. I’d age 10 years in 1

I read somewhere that the B12 media agreement has a pre-set escalator for new members at something like 66% of the current per school payout. For easy math let's call that $20MM. So, in theory, that is the number the new media agreement for the PAC would need to clear (I suspect the B12 would try and re-open for the really big PAC schools but let's just assume that never happens). I'll go with the optimism that the new deal comes in at around $30MM per school. So, I don't think the B12 money is going to be a hard problem to solve for schools who are worried about that particular component. But I am reeeeeeeaaaaallllly queasy about what that deal really offers. First, Amazon isn't looking for tonnage, they are looking for the best games (a sports media expert was on a prominent journalist's podcast talking about this issue and how the current willingness to spend has changed from 3.5 months ago). We already know that Fox is set (happy to buy for pennies in dollar), and ESPN is only looking only for the 4th window. Amazon isn't going to pay a premium without a healthy lineup of premium games. That means a lot of the best PAC games will be available on a streaming-only basis. Ring a bell? To me (and this is just me) this has shades of the dreaded Larry Scott PAC 12 Network theory of the case. That was a disaster and laid the seeds for the uncertainty of today. I understand that a heavy reliance on streaming for distribution is only a decision of last resort given how cornered the PAC is at the moment. But that doesn't change that fact that for the big programs, it is a (I think) huge risk. I think of it this way. The risk of streaming is that your visibility drops significantly relative to linear, and as well know all too well, visibility/profile is a really big part of a team's value. Why? Low visibility makes it harder to attract good recruits and coaches. That in turn erodes the current state of your program, momentum that can be hard and/or lengthy to arrest once it starts. For Oregon and UW, that is pretty big downside risk. So, what is the upside? You make probably, at most, $10MM-$15MM more per year for 5 years and your travel schedule is more manageable (not an insignificant thing obviously). There is no first mover advantage for the PAC in betting a lot of their visibility on streaming so that $10MM-$15MM is the *maximum* revenue upside. If the Dawgs and Ducks had to hole up in the B12 for 4-5 years, then the cost/headache to travel isn't all that much of an issue. Add it up and I am not in any way thrilled with the idea of tying myself to a 5–6-year deal with such a heavy reliance on streaming for distribution. For all the money the Ducks have invested in football you would be wagering all of that for an extra $50MM-$75MM over, say, a 5-year period. I am just not getting enough to make that kind of bet IMO. If I were the leadership for the Ducks and Dawgs, I would insist on getting a buyout schedule upfront that declined by each year and was executable after year 1. If the networks needed to void the deal in the event of those teams leaving, I would force GK to give that to the media rights buyer(s). The PAC has been around 107 years. It's all I have ever known, and I am quite sad and dismayed to see it in its current state. But as a Duck or Dawg alum, I can't imagine that affinity for the PAC is greater than that of your team. GK is asking some premier members to take a massive leap of faith with streaming. If that bet goes bad, you don't want to be locked into that deal until 2029/30. And I don't know if there is any 'wait and see' on the financials. We know the deal is at best in the mid-30s. We know it will have a heavy streaming-only component. If you knew that the deal looked like the above, what would you do?

TBH, as I’ve watched this unfold I am now at the point where I keep hoping to read the Four Corner schools are leaving for the B12. I grew up with the PAC and I love it dearly but someone needs to put it out of its misery When you are talking about adding the #6 school in Dallas for expansion you are desperate. When your only hope of making any kind of per school payout that matches the B12 is to move most of your games to Amazon, you are desperate When ESPN is the only linear network that will pay you but only at a reduced price and only to have you fill the dreaded 10:30 EST time slot, you are in real, real trouble The issue isn’t they money per se. If you could stay in the PAC and get the same payout you would get if you went to the B12, go to the B12. The PAC’s liability has *always* been time zone. We are on after most of the country has gone to bed. So, the moves the conference are looking to make in many ways makes that problem far worse An SEC or BIG can move streaming to mainstream. The PAC lacks the brand pull. The B12 out maneuvered the PAC. They are up the rest of the linear dollars and the PAC is now left with sub-prime quality scraps. Oregon will suffer under this model. No star recruits are likely going to want to play for a school that is in TV oblivion. Again, not all money is created equal. The B12’s per school is more valuable than the PAC’s even if they are the same number The PAC is zombie and someone needs to end it

Probably an unknowable but one has to wonder how much the prospect of working at ASU colored/impacted his approach over the last three games. It's hard compartmentalizing that sort of thing.

I was at that game as a student and I remember it as a great win... Today was pretty bad all told (clearly). The Ducks' Achille's Heel, their defense, really bit them today. There is no way they should have lost that game. Up 17 to start the 4th quarter against a team that cannot throw the ball and, in fact, did not throw the ball once in their last 5 possessions. Lanning needs to really knuckle down this offseason and get this fixed. Not sure how else to put it.

@Log Haulin Given what DL was seeing from his defense would you have punted back to OSU? I think what people aren't grasping here is that the quality of the Ducks' D means DL has to assume he can't count on his D to get him the ball back w/out the other side scoring. If he had a lockdown D and punted from the 29, the math would very likely support that (or it might be a close call). But he doesn't. Yeah, that's on him but his decision making is correct

Watching the SC game. 3 and change left, up by 10, 4th and 2. Goes for it which is the correct call because another set of downs drives your win % way up and a TD absolutely closes the door. Two of the four outcomes pretty much end the game. One pretty much assures no worse than OT. The other perhaps a loss. I would bet most here would think FG because no worse than OT. But if your goal is to win the game the decision is incorrect. Going for it has the biggest chance of winning the game right then and there.

The takes of DL being a crazy gambler are just flat wrong. I could go around and around on this but the TL;DR is this: the math supports DL. If he punts when you want him to and they lose you would not blame him because, well, punting is what people are supposed to do and it was the right play. What you aren't seeing, however, the punt is actually riskier but because it's often distanced from the consequences you don't make the association. DL is taking the correct risks. I encourage you all to adjust the way you think about the game and explore how analytics works and what it says about how to think about the game and how to play certain situations. I sure hope boosters and any other people in positions of power try to put pressure on DL to play conventional ball because it will be value destructive to do so. The Ducks problems were in the play calling and the D collapsing. It isn't in the situational risks DL is taking.

I didn’t say always. I said punting should be avoided as much as possible (bunting is always wrong but that’s a very different dynamic as to why) You seem to be confusing the outcome of a decision with whether the decision leading up to that outcome was the ‘right’ one. If you get a win making low value risk decisions in favor of highest value options you are still making incorrect decisions. That’s also known as getting lucky which isn’t a sustainable paradigm

You are both overthinking and oversimplifying it. Your framework suggests there are so many variables that it’s impossible to really trust the math so ultimately gut feel is the best course. This is just functionally incorrect. That isn’t how analytics work. Analytics is simply a way to understand the game outside of conventional wisdom. Analytics totally changed baseball because it helped people see the game as it actually was. It exposed the framework for executing and a set of probabilities (expected value of decision y). Simple example: never bunt. Like ever. In football’s case, possession is the coin of the realm (hard to score without it). If you believe that then it’s easy to accept punting is giving away a down and should be avoided whenever possible You have a better chance of earning a set of downs with four plays vs three. Also, your strategy changes (example: is 3rd and 6 really an obvious passing down if you know you are going for it on 4th?) It’s counterintuitive because everything you know about football says that giving the Dawgs the ball inside your own 35 is more dangerous than getting the ball away from your goal line. Analytics helps you see the situation as it actually is from a risk perspective and not through an emotional lens (better to take $75 in hand than a coin flip for $150 which is actuality backwards). Anyhow, the horse is in the glue factory on this point. Hear your perspective but (clearly) I don’t share it.

Last comment I swear! You are asked to make as much money as possible given two choices: Choice 1: flip a coin where if you win you are paid $150 but if you lose, you get $0 Choice 2: Get paid $75. Which would you choose? This is a famous question about people’s ability to correctly assess risk. If you have read my earlier posts you can probably guess the correct answer but absent that clue, what does your instinct tell you to do?

This is kinda like how Seahawk fans feel about Russell. The trade that keeps on getting more lopsided by the week in only the best of ways. They paid the Ducks to upgrade their coach and probably set their own program back for at least 5 years. Yikes!

I think it’s situational. Right now, continuity and building 3 good recruiting classes (especially w/yr 2 having Moore) has to be the priority and I’d be willing to overpay for that. Once the program and DL’s rep has stable inertia then keeping coordinators has less impact on the program’s success

I’ll just leave it with this last set of thoughts. In UW’s case, the FG was the right call because the most probable worst outcome of that decision was heading to OT. The Ducks’ calculus was totally different in that the most likely outcome of a punt was losing (I still argue punting carried a bigger hit to win % than going for it because UW plays to get into FG range and probably takes all time off the clock) I go further and say if you are willing to go for it inside your own 35 you go for it inside their 10 because of the huge increase in win % but that’s a different conversation I would love to have someone that does this kind of calculation break down this very question of the go for it/punt debate

Can’t the converse be true? Playing a conservative Offense (take points when you can get them even if that decision isn’t maximalist EV) plays to the Beaver’s strength? I’m not saying take stupid risk like running low probability plays in non ideal situations (e.g., the onside kick v UW or trickery to start 3Q v Utah). But there must be some point threshold where the Beav’s win % collapses because of their anemic offense. I would play pedal to the metal EV all day long. If kicking a FG gives me an EV of 2.8 points and going on 4th gives me 2.9 (or more), I’m going for it. Put maximum pressure on the Beavs.

OK, this is so the same question I have. Base analytics are one thing but how do teams calculate their specific index (as well as those of the other team) both before and during the game? My admittedly dorky dream is to sit with one of these gurus and ask how they do this. Example: many people highlight TT being a reason to punt. Implicitly this line of thinking says the probability of conversion is lower than the Ducks’ normal personnel set. Seems fair. Let’s set aside whether some plays are better than others and just go with an über EV On the flip side, however, is the Husky offense. Penix was out of his mind that night. So whatever EV scenarios you had entering the game had to be plussed up given the actual performance that night. At some point you have to conclude the most probable outcome if you give the ball back to the Dawgs via punt or downs was going to be points. So, TT wasn’t an ideal option at that point but it’s still better than punting and hoping your D outperforms it’s expected result (which, TBH, there was no rational reason for doing so. Also, in an odd way I suspect giving the ball over inside the 35 increases the Ducks win % because DeBoer prioritizes burning the Ducks’ TOs and so becomes more conservative in turn tipping the stop probability in the D’s favor) Math is fun.

You asked the exact right question: Why would you ever punt if that is the math? Answer: You don’t. But that runs counter to conventional wisdom so it gets dismissed as wrong even though it is mathematically correct. Your ‘flipping the field’ comment is a ‘aversion to loss’ mindset that Romer highlighted as why coaches fundamentally misjudge how to play 4th down (FWIW, studies have shown most people are wired to think this way and is why most people aren’t good at assessing risk) I hope DL said it was the wrong decision in terms of play call because it wasn’t strategically.

It would have made sense regardless. This is a much longer discussion but suffice to say, I’d be probably OK with the decision at almost any other part of the game. Let me approach this in an entirely different scenario. You are down 15 points and you score a touchdown. Do you go for 2? Does your answer change based on some threshold of time remaining that needs to be crossed (e.g., only if under 10 minutes in the 4th quarter?)? You should always go for 2 regardless of when in the game this scenario presents itself. Announcers always say “too early to chase points” which gets back to the problem with punting. Football is a game of possessions, namely how many you will get. Knowing how many possessions you need to tie or win is the most valuable piece of information. So, here you need to know if you are down two scores or one as you coach differently based on the answer. Anyhow, don’t fear 4th down