Mudslide

Fine article, David. Many thanks. How about a 25 yard penalty for targeting with no suspension unless OBVIOUSLY malicious?

Aha...The Bends!

Canzano wrote more about himself than he did sports. My feelings about him departing the Oregonian? YEA!

My turn.... Coach Lanning, carp(e) dium!

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the coach needs to work harder. I understand that he has had decades of success with his teams and his coaching philosophy. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have his critics and/or alternatives that better suit the players he uses. Watch any Duck game and you'll see a couple of things. First the 'weave'. To me this is a useless offense unless there is better, more energetic movement off the ball AND guys who can successfully drive the basket (think Payton Pritchard). The only guy that appears to have that ability successfully, and only slightly so, is Young. So the 'weave' is mostly a waste of time with this team. It can't create the necessary mismatches because only one player is particularly good at doing so. And driving to the basket...note the distance between the driving player and the pick. The drives usually leave plenty of space for the defender to go over the top of the pick. (For the absolute class of this play, just take a look at any drive by NBA players.) For a recent game, the Washington team does the tight pick MUCH better. Duck defenders had to go under the pick...easy three shot. Second the 3-point and free throw shooting. Do these guys practice? The only muscle memory I see is laying bricks. My wife has better free throw stats than the team. And she's 72 years old! So...the team can't drive to the bucket and can't shoot over zones. What's left for the offense? Third...what's left is the fast break. The Ducks have been out rebounded in almost all of their conference games. That in spite of having two talented 7 footers. More than just energy is required to rebounding. It's coaching to block out and get into position. And to "want to". So this becomes a net losing offense for this team. Rewind the WSU game and watch the WSU players position and drive for rebounds. And fourth...passing is lazy and inconsistent. This I lay on the players as well as the coaches. That leaves defense. (As an aside, the two bigs experiment in the WSU game was an complete failure for multiple reasons.) But watch the play of the teams that have been creaming the Ducks. Defense matters to them. They front and challenge the Ducks. The Ducks idea of defense, coached by Altman, is to lay off every offensive player (except occasionally with Young and Williams) until they're inside the 3-point line. Defensive rebounding poorly executed (see offensive rebounding above) is yet another jab in the throat of the Ducks chances of winning. I'm not a b-ball coach and don't claim to know much. But I did play a lot of the game in my (sadly) lost youth. The game has not changed that much in 50 years. But I'm in agreement with Charles. The coach is throwing shade at his players and really should look in the mirror with this teams' performances. Is he making best use of his players? I say no. You may disagree. It's obvious that the players have loads of talent. Witness the big Top 10 wins. But...................... I'm open to other ideas.

I could have used some of those bricks for a back wall I want to build. After watching (most, definitely not all) that game, I hope i "enjoyed" this game more than the players did. WSU popped the Ducks March Madness Poop Balloon but good. And I'll say this for the 5th time...I detest that weave Altman has uses. And who in the world is teaching the Ducks how to (apparently not) scrape the defender on their offensive picks? Gads...and I thought the last couple football games were bad. On the good news front.....GO GET 'EM Kepnang!

Thanks for the link, Duck '72. It gives rise to all kinds of interesting speculation. My first thought was that if their suggestions are enforced, the Chip Kelly era will return. Teams will be running plays again like it was 2007. Also...how about just dropping one game. It will have the same effect of limiting plays...that expose players to injuries...which is the committee's whole point. It would be one game vs. their suggested ideas that result in a reduction of 1.2 games worth of plays. (To me, that would beat changing a gaggle of rules to the game play.) AND...a real limiting factor will be how this change would affect the commercials count. Losing ad sponsors' money may be more important to them than player safety. (Just guessing, here.) Lastly, if football is to survive, there will always be risks for injury. Unless, of course one wants to join a flag football team. How far are they willing to go?!

Interestingly, the 11-1 season I mentioned above (2001) sported a defense that held opponents to ... ta daaa ... 21 points/game.

Thanks for the thoughtful article, David. To see how the times have changed...mostly due to Chip Kelly...I took a look back at the Ducks 2001 11-1, second ranked team. Our beloved Ducks ONLY averaged 68 offensive plays/game. The defense had to run 74 plays/game. (And for grins, here is a stat that blows my mind. The 2001 Ducks football team averaged 34 points/game. Only 34! Amazing.

That's trophy...not fishing gear. One winner of biggest fish. One trophy.

What a great idea. I'd pay for a 1st Annual Spring Camp Fishing Meet trophy. And the 2nd Annual....etc.

I met Bill in San Diego 30 years ago. He was much more a normal human in articulation and carriage than he shows now on tv. In fact, I have to turn the audio off when he's calling a game. He either has a media persona, or has turned to the community of Complete Idiocy.

Another great article, Charles. And thanks for the links. They are pretty damning and revealing of the process, and probably shared by lots of coaches (and execs) in the world of college sports. As said above, I think we are now in a better place, coaching and recruiting-wise. Charles, you were on MC early and often about his terrible game management and (micromanaged) game strategies. I was late to your table in that regard...hoping MC just COULDN'T be that stubborn with regards to the offense especially. But nope...he was. And to me, it was a wasted opportunity to grow young qb's (among others) and to finish strong and with some....zeal and excitement. But we were stuck with the old USC trope..."3 yards and a cloud of dust". Gah. Here is a big toast to Coach Lanning. May he generate success AND excitement with our beloved Ducks.

What is this about?

I've said it before and I'll say it again...Richardson is a turnover machine. Five tonight. He seems to enjoy dribbling into double and triple teams...or tripping over his own feet and losing the ball at least once per game. I don't get it and I'm not a fan. And oh yeah...on disappearing for long periods of time...he was 3 for 11 tonight...1 or 7 threes made. Ugh. All that whining by me said...I thoroughly enjoyed the game and the boys brought tons of energy tonight. Great job, overall.

I'd do it for a bad case of eczema.

Naw. Richardson is a turnover machine looking for a triple team to dribble (not 'drive' ala Peyton) into. He disappears for halves (or games) at a time. I have yet to see him put out the energy of, say, Young. He seems to just loiter much of the time while on defense. I agree that he is definitely not the "guy". He is capable of scoring in bunches, but he cannot be relied upon in that regard. And he drove to the basket much better, I thought, the previous two years. He is a head scratcher, that's for sure.

Size doesn't matter. Just ask my wife. But to quote the greatest of all time, Knute Rockne.... "The only qualifications for a lineman are to be big and dumb. To be a back, you only have to be dumb."

I am much more optimistic about the D-line this year. Experience is huge for these players...and of the 14 scholarship D-linemen last year, 10 were freshmen, 3 were sophomores and one was a junior. And I disagree about lack of production from these young dudes. Dorlus, Swinson, and others held up darn well against tOSU and showed decently late in the season. Given a refreshing, new, attacking defensive scheme by the new coaching staff, as well as a year of seasoning for the linemen, I believe we have the makings of a quite decent line. And I highlighted the two players above because I believe they will clock in as All-PAC12 players at the end of the season.

And since we're also talking about Oklahoma and why Riley left...here is a trope, oddly told to me by my cardiologist, a guy who trained under the famous Dr. Michael DeBakey at Baylor University. Do you know why Texas doesn't fall into the Gulf of Mexico? -- Because Oklahoma sucks.

"The U...future proofing education."

How do you get a former University of Miami football player off your porch? Pay him for the pizza

I'm glad, but sad, that you're all seeing the same ugly view of my dystopian predicted image of college sports. Perhaps fans can be a force for reason. But I doubt it. It's pretty depressing, or should be, for most of us. Heck, even the head negotiator for the Players Negotiating (Federal lawsuit) Committee agrees...predicting the end of all non-revenue college sports. Geez. At least I hoped for some residual college 'club' teams. I do not see this snowball being stopped at any point...that is until the to-be-formed Collegiate Players Union negotiates some kind of barely acceptable contract terms with the NCAA.

Wandering thoughts from a decrepit old geezer......................... I agree with you, OP. Greed will kill the product. Here is my prediction for the most likely of future of "college" football (and other sports to a lesser degree). I think it's likely that this NIL form of employee agreements will soon morph into performance contracts (just like the pros). Education will be irrelevant, or secondary at best. A labor union will indeed form. Collective bargaining with the NCAA will occur. Strikes will happen. Individual greed will sever team bonding and fan loyalty. And free agency already exists. Every action has its consequences. Just saying that 'poor' college students already on full ride scholarships deserve a piece of the pie they helped make sounds like 'justice'. But it really doesn't provide the entire picture. Nor a vision of the action's consequences. I do not see a happy ending for this vector of collegiate sports. I've said before that the pros are now all about salary and "what's in it for me"...not the team. That will happen to our beloved college football...then basketball, then baseball, then ??? I've ditched the pros because I saw the big 3 sports strike or threaten labor strikes in my lifetime. That kind of greed made me keep the big buck ticket money stay in my pocket. I no longer have any favorite teams.....because they aren't teams. With few exceptions, they're a collection of privileged, overpaid, me-first athletes with no loyalty to teams. Oh, and college game tickets will skyrocket too, just like the pros. So then....why should I support that? You all most likely have bemoaned the stories about SEC teams paying players to come to their schools. "Under the table" stuff. I didn't see a lot of support for the "justice" of that for players. This new paradigm will be no different...except to be on a much larger scale. Incidentally, this pay-to-play program will percolate down to high school...maybe even lower (given that teams are submitting offers to middle school kids). It's a sad day. For me at least the landscape of collegiate (and amateur) sports in general will be unrecognizable to those of us in the grey beard bunch.

Chicken meet egg. Which comes first? His love for us or our love for him? After all, HE signed an LOI and he is here visiting. I'd say he is showing the love. How about us? Not so much, so far.