noDucknewby

Yeah, Hawaii in November would be nice!

Word.

I can't really argue much with the numbers, they just don't mean as much after losing to the fuskies again and let's face they're a bit inflated because of PSU and Hawaii. That said, I think we've got the right staff in place and I'm anxious to see how this team responds against wazoo and then finishes the season. I'm not penciling in a fusky rematch just yet, but it's a very real possibility IMHO.

I don't feel any differently about this team, I'm not sure how you could ask much more out of the players. That said, Lanning's in-game decisions are a work in progress. All 4th down attempts are not the same, I totally agree with that last attempted conversion, it was very makable and if it succeeds then it's victory formation. Penix is too good to give him the last possession, even if it does wind up being a long field for him our corners were pretty dinged and he has more than enough time to put together a game-winning drive. However I hated not taking the field goals earlier, especially the one right before halftime. There was no advantage to giving them a long field if we failed on the TD conversion since it was the last play of the half. Sure Cam has struggled a bit as of late, but that was essentially an extra point which he hasn't missed yet this year. Take the damn free points and go into haltime with some momentum.

Clearly "elite" is a subjective term, IMHO a balanced offense that scores a lot of points would be the paradigm. That said, all points count the same regardless of how they're scored. So yes, to answer your question pass-heavy offenses such as those you mentioned can absolutely be elite. I just think that having an offense that can also pound the ball can be very advantageous, especially in November. That's why I agree with David and I also like our odds for a strong finish. I'm not taking anything away from our defense in the Colorado game, it was the best defensive performance I can remember seeing in years. We leave the starters in and we most likely get a shutout. That said, you can't do a statistical analysis by ignoring inconvenient data points. As it now stands, Colorado is #40 in scoring offense which is not elite. Yes Shedeur Sanders has put up some great passing numbers, but he also has lots of negative rushing yards from sacks (which are not entirely his fault). SS may indeed by an "elite" QB, I'm not saying he isn't, but as a whole the Colorado offense is not and their O-line is clearly not up to the task.

Bit of a stretch if you ask me, no running game and a QB that's on his back more than any other in the country. My definition of an "elite" offense would have to include a solid, if not dominant O-line. Plus the only number that really matters is points and Colorado is currently ranked #40 in scoring offense, just not "elite" to me. YMMV.

I completely agree with your analysis at this point in the season. But- We have yet to face either an elite offense or an elite defense. A month from now we'll know a lot more as we will have faced the offenses of the Washington schools and the defenses of Utah and Cal. Then comes November and we face USC and arguably the best defense in the conference this year in the Civil War. I'm cautiously optimistic as usual, but this season could still go either way IMHO.

This is a bargaining chip alright, but only as long as Schultz sits on the CFP committee. As soon as he's gone the whole thing gets rewritten, which happens regardless when the CFP deal with ESPN expires. That said it's a hell of a chip in the short term IMHO.

OK if I'm reading the schedule correctly, the Ducks, fuskies, Utah and the spoiled children all play each other this year. If one of those teams is fortunate enough to beat the other three and win the rest of their conference games, they still will most likely have to face one of the others in a rematch in the P-12 Championship. Sounds like your typical Pac-12 bloodbath to me, so it's going to be hard enough to get one team into the playoffs, let alone two.

At some point they're going to crave the exposure they'd get from playing a nationally televised game again, probably won't get much of that in the Pac-X or MWC. That said I find it highly doubtful that game would be played on rivalry weekend, hopefully the weekend before but it could wind up being played in September.

Total BS, they skip it goes down as a forfeit in my book. You don't get to pick and choose the games you want to play in conference, even if you're the spoiled children.

Couldn't have said it better. Last year's D couldn't stop the rodents on a single drive in the 4th quarter when they were running every play and everyone knew it, WITH THE CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP ON THE LINE. Same with the fusky game, one stop in the 4th quarter and we win that game, not to mention DL/KD probably don't go for it on 4th down around our own 30-yard line if they trust the defense to make a stop. Maybe we can give them credit for a win in the Utah game, but IMO Cam Rising and his receivers had a terrible game. The Autzen environment probably had a lot to do with that and we don't win that game in Rice-Eccles IMHO. I'm cautiously optimistic as I always am (especially this time of year), but expecting a quantum leap in defense in year two may be a bit much to ask.

As the super conferences coalesce it seems inevitable that the media giants calling the shots give the boot to programs like Rutgers and Vanderbilt. I'm really hoping this doesn't happen, but if it does it becomes a blood-bath at that point. IMHO the only thing that saves some semblance of college football as we know it is a centralized power structure with a commissioner ala the NFL. As it stands the media giants are pitting conference against conference and there really is no recourse as it stands. Chip's got it right, split football from the other collegiate sports (no NCAA!), appoint a commissioner and board of directors, agree on a set of NIL rules and then negotiate for media rights as a comprehensive package. Granted this is a massive undertaking, but we know what we get if we keep going down the road we're on.

Cal really has no options, their ceiling is probably $10 million. A B1G invite at a drastically reduced rate may allow them to survive until the next round, but aside from that what are their options? No chance as an independent and maybe $10 million in the MWC/AAC/Pac. I hope this doesn't happen, but if they can't figure out how to survive on that amount then they probably won't.

OK something tells me the B1G is just not going to let Furd go to the ACC (which could potentially seal ND's eventual football conference should they forego being independent) at a bargain basement price. I'm with you on this one FD, just offer Furd/Cal $10 million or quarter share or eighth share for that matter it's still better than what they would get in the MWC. Then let the rodents and wazoo own the name and merge/expand with the MWC/AAC.

In a sense it's better for Pac survival if Furd/Cal leave IMHO. Stanford as of now is calling the shots and they're still adamant about only expanding with AAU members. It's that kind of elitism that caused the implosion of the Pac-12 in the first place. At that point the rodents and wazoo inherit the Pac-12 name and whatever assets are left. They are then free to either merge or cherry-pick with the MWC/AAC under the Pac-12 name without regard to the now irrelevant AAU standard. Sure it's kind of like a drummer with a famous rock band winding up with the legal rights to the name, but nonetheless it still has some value and marketability. Probably not likely, but the new conference could possibly even retain Power 5 status.

If ain't down in writing, it ain't down. Nobody really thought the Alliance had much validity other than a rallying cry against the SEC. As for Oregon in the B1G, I agree with Log Haulin this just seemed inevitable. Lament all you want for the good old days of the Pac-12 (and beleive me I do), but college football is going through a paradigm shift and I'm just glad we're seated at the big table going forward.

I pretty much agree with everyone you say, but I still feel the academics hold some sway. Fox could possibly be persuaded as an enticement to ND whom they would love to poach from NBC. Not saying any of this makes much sense, but what in the last week has?

Just speculating here, but at some point I can't help but think the B1G academics are going to throw Furd/Cal a lifeline (at a bargain basement price of course). Stanford doesn't need the money so they would be fine, but I guess Cal would just have to figure it out somehow (what real choice do they have?). I just don't think the ACC bid will pan out regardless of ND's advocacy.

I would love for this to happen, but something tells me the B1G is going to want the Oregon/Washington game to take precedent. That said a mid-season game ala the Red River Rivalry would preserve most of the tradition of the CW, although as a non-conference it just won't be the same. I'm reminiscing now, but my favorite CW of all time was the year it was all on the line, winner take all for the Rose Bowl. Watching Masoli truck the rodent safety for a fourth down conversion to allow us to run out the clock is probably my best Autzen memory.

I'm no lawyer so I don't know how (if at all) changing conferences affects our non-conference agreements. What I do know is that these games get rescheduled all the time. If I'm in charge of scheduling, the first thing I do is get rid of that 2-1 series with BSU and pencil in the rodents. If that requires a buyout, then so be it. That gives until 2027 to figure out a more permanent solution.

Nothing but cupcakes if the B1G goes to 10 conference games.

The engineering of the previous expansion was specifically designed to accomodate a second phase. They most likely already have those plans. Not saying the other logistical hurdles aren't significant, but in the past those have all been overcome and I suspect that would be the case here.

Yes that would certainly change the equation, but it seems to me that divisions are gone for good regardless of how the geography works.

Fuskies will almost certainly be our protected game in this format. I agree it's unlikely that we play USC/UCLA every year, I'm guessing every other year. So basically we have two west coast conference games, probably split home/away. That leaves seven conference games so we'll travel for 3-4 of those. Good background from the Rutgers poster about the B1G protecting UM/tOSU, we may have to wait a while before the big dogs come to Autzen. I'm hoping we get that make-up game against tOSU, but most likely we're going to see the likes of Purdue/Indiana/Illinois/Northwestern for a while. I'm betting that we have mostly one-offs from the top-tier of the B1G in their house. Ok none of this should be a big surprise (this is what we signed up for), but IMHO it's imperative that we play our non-conference games (other than every other year with the Beavs) at home. Screw playing Georgia in Atlanta or LSU in Jerry World, we no longer need that signature non-conference win.