Triphibius

My apologies if I am repeating points made previously. I am getting to this discussion a bit late. Despite the absences of Morehead, Forsyth and Bennett Williams, despite the spotty play of QB Brown and despite the unsuccessful 4th down play at the goal line in the first half, according to ESPN Oregon had a 99.9% chance of victory with about 2:30 minutes remaining in the game. The 0.1% chance came to pass because of three things working in conjunction: 1. The two false start penalties in a quiet stadium that left Oregon facing a 1st down and 20 situation with about 2:15 remaining. 2. The incomplete pass thrown on second and seventeen in that sequence. 3. Three calls by the officials within the last 90 seconds, any one of which would have be considered highly questionable. Conclusion: the game was not a masterpiece, but Oregon played well enough to win under anything resembling normal circumstances. This was a painful defeat, but I think that we ought to be cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions at this stage.

In my view, the term "irrelevant" has become a cliche and an obstacle to thought. That said, I have third observations about Joel Klatt's statement. First, Klatt is a Colorado alumnus. I understand why Colorado people would be frustrated that their undefeated squad was passed over in favor of a two-loss Oregon team. However, Oregon did win the game, as the northern division representative nearly always has. The game's outcome surely provides some evidence that the powers that be were not wrong to include the best available team from the northern division. If Klatt things that Colorado would have been selected for the playoff if the Buffalos had defeated USC in the championship game, I think he is delusional. Second, the Covid-19 virus was a far important cause of the league's "irrelevance" that aforementioned issue. Before the virus, Oregon had many promising young players and few established stars. Once Covid-19 hit and practices were curtailed, the young players lost the chance to develop and most of the stars and leaders opted out. As a result, Oregon had no realistic chance of competing for a playoff spot. Third, the Pac-12's response to the Covid-19 virus was to delay the season, costing Oregon and all the members the chance to round into form against weaker opponents. The shortened and disrupted season diminished the quality of play, making it even more diffcult for Pac-12 teams to pass the "eye test," which would quite reasonably be applied in comparing a team playing a six or seven game season to one playing a full season. That decision, as I understand it, was made by the Presidents, not by Larry Scott. It may or may not have been the right decision, but there is no reason to think it was done for dubious motives. This has been an unusual if not unprecedented year. It may be premature at this stage to draw sweeping conclusions about the future of the Pac-12 and Oregon's role in it.