Viking Duck

I don't think there is really an easy answer to that? Obviously people who are predicting he will fail at this point will be disappointed, but other than that not sure what other effect there would be. Until the playoffs change, it would essentially mean that Miami would have to run the table, 12-0 or 11-1, and knock of Clemson in the championship game for the ACC as far as I know. More or less similar to Oregon in the Pac-12, except they tend to play a slightly easier schedule since there are fewer conference games. He would need to get that talent base in the program, which should be easier for him there, and then use it effectively to get that type of record. I'd say for our experience, the Rose Bowl year was as close as we got, derailed by just one game.

I agree it's a great move and a positive sign. Although I think the last comment was a bit of tongue in cheek, I disagree. I envision Wilcox turning into the next Kyle Whittingham, and considering how badly Utah kicked OBD's tail feathers last year, I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion to hire him. I know I'm bucking the trend on this forum to say it, but given the resources a coach has to work with at UO, I'd take an upcoming Whittingham who will stick around rather than jumping in a few years, which I'm sure Lanning will do if he leads us to success. But that's just my preference

I think Jon really encapsulates it here - there is no going back, and as much as I dislike the changes, those changes are upon us and it's probably going to be a little chaotic until things settle out. NCAA football is a multi-billion dollar revenue generator that outproduces MLB, America's sport, by billions of dollars. The Supreme Court quite rightly ruled that holding the athletes to arbitrary 'amateur' rules and restrictions while the rest of the system operates like a professional league in terms of income is completely unfair. I don't know how it will end up, but I suspect that Jon's idea is as good as any. In fact, it's going to be like Minor League Baseball, except that the college affiliations add so much value to the sport that they won't make minor league teams. Still, players will essentially get signing bonuses and performance bonuses during their years at the top schools, which is what I think we are seeing now already.

My thought is that at this time of year in the NFL, we get to read the umpteen articles giving draft grades after seeing the rookies perform over a year, and as usual it's a little over a 50% hit rate (or C/B average) for the first round. And this is with players who have been evaluated by the 'best in the business' and have a few years of college tape to go on. My takeaway would be that, even if a raw recruit is a four or five star, if I only had five picks, I'd go with the proven three star who has shown he can succeed at that level. And this is especially true in this era when players are free to transfer out at will; there is no guarantee that you will get more years out of an incoming freshman than you will out of an incoming junior or senior transfer. All that said: Take the proven veterans: Jake Broussard; Chase Cota Take the linemen: Michael Connelly; Dave Iluli For the fifth, I'd say take the best available player left - Defensive backs are more important than ever, but those tweener players who could be TE/Big WR/Light LB are more important than ever too, so maybe Arlis Broadingham would fit that mold.