Triphibius

Thanks for joining us, OST8. I am leaning towards what I would term a merger with the Big 12. In addition to revenue, my concerns with this are two: 1) respecting the lives of student-athletes in all sports, which means not imposing travel schedules on them appropriate only for pro athletes; 2) bringing into the new league or organization our long-time rivals and partners: WSU, Cal and our local OSU. Some issues I foresee: 1) What to do with UCF and West Virgina, which are quite distant from Eugene, Oregon; 2) What to do about the total number, which would be 22 I believe if everyone now or soon to be affiliated with each league remained. Others no doubt know the revenue numbers better, but that is what I want. I am very much open to persuasion at this point, not that Messieurs Kliavkoff and Mullen are likely to consult me.

From Jon Wilner, cited IN Duck Territory: Source: “I’d be stunned if Washington and Oregon go to the Big Ten. The Big Ten will sit back for two years, then try to get Notre Dame” Growing reality is the Ducks and Huskies have to 1) make it work in the #Pac12 or 2) join the Big 12. My guess: 1) is their preference. What are your thoughts?

Thank you both for your responses. I am not as informed about the financial issues as others on this site, so bear with me. I assume that from the TV networks perspective, the point is to get as many eyeballs staring at the screen on Saturday afternoon as possible. With that in mind, what incentive would people in Houston have to tune into a WSU versus OSU game? Would there not have to be some inter-divisional play to interest folks in the Big 12 Land in the games involving west coast teams? The best system for me is one in which you play everyone in your division and a few teams from the other division, as we have done recently in the Pac 12. Again, that would be unwieldy if some of the current 22 teams were not removed. Happy Fourth to all.

I am going to approach this by stating first the criteria or principles according to which the conference restructuring ought to be done. Criteria: 1. To enable the U of O to be competitive nationally, to maintain and if possible, elevate the programs’ competitiveness. 2. To maintain traditional rivalries and partnerships, especially with the northwest and Bay Area universities. 3. To treat the student-athletes and fans of all collegiate sports with respect, not burdening them with a travel schedule appropriate only for professional athletes. Alternatives: 1. Enter the former Big 10, possibly forming a Western pod with former PCC schools. 2. Some sort of merger with the former and soon to become Big 12. 3. Expand the former Pac 12 to return to 12 teams, possibly with SDSU and Boise State. Discussion: 1. I view the Big 10 as morally discredited, too distant, and probably not favorable to our competitiveness. If most of the games are within our pod, this may not be as bad as I feared initially. It certainly means throwing Cal, WSU, and Beavers under the bus. 2. The current membership of the Pac 12 is ten, and the membership of the Big 12 is to return to 12 with the addition of the new members. This would be cumbersome if all 22 are admitted to the league. In a game of musical chairs, someone is not going to get a seat, possibly the same trio I mentioned above. Moreover, traveling to Morgantown and Orlando violates the third criterion. This might be acceptable as a “hostile takeover” in which we can dictate the terms. This would mean creaming off the most attractive programs from the Big 12 and casting the others adrift. I don’t know if we have that kind of bargaining leverage, and I do not feel great about it, although UCF does not belong in the league traditionally or geographically. 3. Meets the second and third criteria, possibly not the first. The implicit standard might be that Oregon has to run the table in what would be deemed the weakest conference to be considered for a four-team playoff. I am still cogitating. This is presented simply for the purposes of discussion.

If the B1G wants the U of O, I would be reluctant to join. The best option seems to me to merge with the some or all of the Big-12. It could be a better league than the ACC, if needed the ACC survives. The Greedy Ten's detachment of Nebraska accelerated the disintegration of the Big-12 and all the traditional regional leagues. USC may have initiated contact, but they accepted, which is in my view the most odious, treacherous act of villainy in the whole sorry history. Finally, does no one feel any regret about leaving behind longtime competitors and colleagues such as Oregon State, California, and Washington State? If Mrs. Bowerman had not owned a waffle iron, the U of O might now be the same position. There but for the grace of God go we. I suppose that I will turn the television on come fall, but I am repelled by the uncontrolled greed that is destroying traditional college football.

I thought Butterfield looked better than Thompson in the spring game. Thompson was not consistently impressive during the season. No disrespect to the former staff, but I am not assuming that they evaluated talent at QB accurately.

I am deeply grateful as a fan for all that Kelly accomplished at the U of O. However.... 1. He, too, left for greener pastures. 2. He left a mess, by cutting corners with recruiting. 3. He is arrogant, and annoys the press and boosters. 4. He is not a dedicated recruiter. 5. The system that he used here (not only scheme but nutrition and training) is no longer a novelty. Why would we expect better results than he achieved in Westwood?

Yes, thanks for the post EveryDay, and my compliments to everyone in the thread. My thoughts: 1. AB probably does give Oregon "a better chance to win" than Ty Thompson, who was unimpressive when pressed into service a few weeks ago. He does not appear to be readly. 2. MC has said that Ashford is not yet at the same level of performance as the other two. 3. How about Butterfield? He looked very good the spring game. The issue (for Moorhead) may be that he does not have the physique to run the ball as required in the current offense. This may not be a long-term problem if he can add some muscle as Herbert did, and Moorhead can modify the offfense to suit his talents. 4. I admire AB as a young man, for all the reasons EveryDay mentioned. That said, why is he here at all? Shough, based on his performance this year prior to his injury, had more potential. I wonder whether Moorhead, who did not recruit Shough, did not undermine his confidence by signing AB, thereby creating the problem Oregon now faces.

A painful defeat, much like the loss to Iowa State in the bowl game last year. What do those two games have in common? Granted, AB did not play well, but when a team is beaten this soundly all the blame cannot be attributed to the QB. Utah executed their plan better, and seemed both more passionate and more poised. Perhaps they are just a more mature football team, with players who are not necessarily more talented, but who are a good fit for their system and more experienced. Not to make excuses, but the injuries were certainly a factor. Schematically: 1) on offense, Utah went with two or maybe three tight ends or spare offensive lineman, as Stanford often did in their glory years against Oregon. Thibodeaux was neutralized by double-teams. Oregon usually had five men on the line of scrimmage and two linebackers. Utah was gaining yardage even when there was no hole simply by pushing the scrum. Their lead running back was not flashy, but powerful. 2) on defense, Utah consistently had seven men in the box, with a four man front and three linebackers. Quite sensibly, they decided to make Anthony Brown not Travis Dye beat them. Moorhead elected not to run against this formation, but rather to establish the pass to enable the run. We all saw the results. I admit that I have a tough time being analytical watching a game on TV that is going this badly, but Oregon's staff did not seem to make effect adjustments to what their opponents were doing. Are there no counter-measures to these schemes?

One addendum to my previous statement. The "Pac12 after dark" phenomenon is not helping, either. Is seems absurd that a contending team is playing repeatedly at a time when most people in the United States are already in dreamland.

Well said. The same thought occurred to me: we lose to Auburn and we're out; we win at OSU, and we are still out. However... 1. Oregon has reached the playoffs twice. It can be done. Perhaps the Ducks are no longer darlings of the talking heads, but that may not matter too much to the committee. 2. The bigger problem is the nine-game conference schedule. If the committee will not adopt a strength of schedule measure that rewards this, the Pac-12 needs to change it. 3. A secondary problem is officiating. Midwest fans complain that B1G officials "protect" Ohio State. I am not asking for "protection" for Oregon as they standard bearer for the Pac12, but I do think the league officials ought to do more to ensure that officials with a track record or bias or ineptitude do not derail the Pac12's leading contender. 4. If Oregon wins out (a big if, since the Utes and Beavs are not pushovers), then Alabama loses but still goes to the playoff in place of Oregon, we have a legitmate complaint. I will give the committe the benefit of the doubt until this happens.

No doubt a university of Washington's academic prowess will have no difficulty attracting qualified candidates.

The recognition is much deserved. I hope he wins, and recovers quickly from his injury.

I suggest that the U Dub elevate their long snapper to Offensive Coordinator.

How about Mark Helfrich?