Jump to content
  • Finish your profile right here  and directions for adding your Profile Picture (which appears when you post) is right here.

noDucknewby

Members
  • Posts

    369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by noDucknewby

  1. If you'd have told me at the beginning of the season we would have 10 wins, beating tOSU in the Shoe, plus the Fuskies and Beavers I think I would have considered that a good year.  Coaching carousel aside, the fact is we got blown out in 3 of our last 4 games.  Sure the Alamo Bowl loss gets an asterisk, and there were some real positive signs for the future, but I guess I'm past the "moral victory" stage as a Duck fan.

     

    Not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, but this is probably the most disappointing 10-win season I can remember.

     

    Still can't wait for 2022, cautiously optimistic as usual, but man I'm glad this season in the rear-view mirror.

    • Thumbs Up 4
  2. Larry Scott's first major blunder was not allowing Texas to keep the Longhorn Network, which wound up being a deal-breaker for them.  He put all his eggs in the P12 Network basket and we know how that turned out.

     

    As long as the University presidents continue insisting on AAU membership (ironic since 3 P12 schools are currently non-members) there's really not much value that can be added outside of the existing P5 conferences.  I doubt we are strong enough to poach other P5 conference members.  We also know they won't take a religious school, so teams like BYU, Baylor, TCU, etc. are out.  We're pretty much boxed in unless the AD's can gain more autonomy and get academia out as the final decision maker in athletic matters.  This would seem to be be doable at least in theory.  Wouldn't it be great to have the ADs making the final decision in conference alignment/expansion?

     

    The only way the new TV contracts can be maximized IMHO is to have non-conference scheduling  with other "Alliance" conferences locked in, for example dropping down to 8 conference games with guaranteed games with 1 BIG and ACC team every year (on a flex-schedule like GK suggests) makes the whole package a lot more attractive.

    • Thumbs Up 1
    • Like 1
  3. Not sure why any of this matters now, the media sell stories and Harbaugh/Michigan, Frost/Nebraska and now Cristobal/Miami are good stories to sell. Let's not pretend Herbie is doing his schtick entirely for the love of the game. 

     

    As for MC, never underestimate the draw of home, not to mention the ridiculously lucrative contract he was offered.  This is the current state of college football or any big business for that matter. Sure the timing sucked for us, but we may have gotten a big upgrade in the process so who cares about what MC might have been thinking in October, with all due respect to the OP.

    • Thumbs Up 1
  4. On 12/24/2021 at 10:58 AM, Log Haulin said:

    IDK if the Rose Bowl matters in years its not in CFP.  Who wants to pay $1000 for a game that many of the best players opt out. Any bowl outside of the CFP is becoming pointless. Throw in the coaching carousel and portal, and its a death wish for these storied bowls. Expand the CFP to incorporate all the historically valued bowls and use the lower tiered championship games to prop up the remaining Kimmie Jimmel type bowls. Crown a champ on first weekend of January.

     

    Sadly I agree with most of your assessment.  College football is going through some pretty serious growing pains right now, I don't know if the sport going forward is going to resemble much what we've grown up with.  

    • Thumbs Up 1
  5. Absolutely more third down stops on defense, ESPECIALLY third and long.

     

    More dynamic offense, particularly variations in tempo.  No more 4-minute offense all damn game.

     

    Keep foot on the gas when playing with a lead, win games going away instead of just hanging on and milking the clock.

     

    Oops I guess that's more than "one" ha ha.

    • Thumbs Up 2
  6. On 12/14/2021 at 12:07 PM, Jon Joseph said:

     

    There are 3 1L teams in the playoff and 1 undefeated team. Unlike Georgia, Alabama and Michigan, Oregon is not going to get a mulligan. Why? Because the conference is held is such low esteem; justified by the on-field failures. 6 bowl teams? Are you kidding me?

     

    No team since the Pac-12 has expanded has gone 13-0. So yes, if Oregon had gone 13 and 0 it would have been in the final 4. It is a huge ask for any team in a P5 conference, even as one as down as the Pac-12, to finish undefeated. Even more so when you play Georgia and BYU OOC in the same season! And you cannot defeat Ohio State and stumble against a 3W Stanford team. You can't lose to an average at best, ASU team. You cannot get blown out twice by a team that lost to BYU, San Diego State and Oregon State. 

     

    A better, rising conference would lift all conference boats. If this doesn't happen, Oregon will not be in the playoff unless it goes 13-0. Also, if it doesn't happen Oregon, as part of the conference will fall financially farther and farther behind the B1G and the SEC. And likely behind the ACC and the new B12.

     

    Well actually two one-loss P12 teams have already made the playoffs, so clearly we can get a mulligan.  In 2019 we were a shoe-in despite losing to a mediocre Auburn team until our late season loss to ASU knocked us out. This season we probably get in if we beat Utah twice, despite losing to Stanford. Of course beating a highly ranked USC team would help the resume, but beating any highly ranked conference team would do the same.

     

    USC has the tradition and the huge TV market that makes them very attractive to the media, but that really doesn't do much for the rest of the conference. The chances of a one-loss P12 champion getting into the CFP are still very good with or without a dominant USC. My point is that it hasn't been the weakness of USC that's kept us out of the CFP, it's that we are losing critical games in November. 

    • Thumbs Up 2
  7. On 12/14/2021 at 9:43 AM, cartm25 said:

    I don't care about "good for the conference". I care about "good for Oregon." The crummy ACC didn't hold back Clemson from making the playoffs, what, 4 or 5 years in a row? Think about it, if the Ducks had won out, all while clawing victory from the jaws of defeat against "lesser" opponents, and with a crummy PAC-12 conference, they would be in the CFP right now. A strong USC is not good for Oregon, rather, it will be a formidable obstacle.

     

    I couldn't agree more.  What's kept us out of the playoff the last few years has been our inability to win the meaningful late-season games, not the perceived weakness of the P12.  The worn out trope that the conference is no good without blueblood USC on top is just plain lazy journalism.

    • Thumbs Up 2
  8. On 12/14/2021 at 7:16 AM, Grandpa Duck said:

    I must have missed the evidence that Justin Wilcox was offered the job.  Is there a Mullins or Wilcox quote out there?
     

    Maybe the two of them allowed a face-saving rumor to circulate to also soothe the egos of the former player letter writers.

     

    I'm not a big fan of Canzano, although he does seem to be well-sourced.  That said, I agree no other evidence that Wilcox was actually offered the job has surfaced.  Not saying it didn't happen, but seems suspect without corroboration.  Not sure that ever happens.

    • Thumbs Up 1
×
×
  • Create New...
Top