Nevada Dawg

I've become not at all reluctant to pick against higher seeded B1G teams over decent basketball programs from other conferences. While I did not pick Purdue over FDU, I've begun to shrug over the past 15 years at the large number of upsets of B1G teams. I once had an opportunity to chat with B1G "homer" Clark Kellogg about the overrepresentation of B1G teams in the Men's NCAA BB tournament. He claimed it was warranted because of the competitive balance of the Big Ten. My reply was that with all those teams, wouldn't you expect to see more Final Four entrants and championships (the B!G has not had a men's champion since 2000) My comeback, only slightly overstated, was that what the B1G has in BB is competitive mediocracy. And the many upsets of such teams that I see in my brackets over the years seem to bear this out. While I win few bracket contests that I enter, it is hardly because I underestimated the prowess of B1G teams.

I remember the old days when rooting for Steve Prefontaine was quite the thing, even for those of us who were not Oregonians. I don't follow college track and,so, assumed that the Ducks were still track powerhouses. My how the lofty have slumped it seems, or am I making bad assumptions? Although I knew that my Dawgs (both genders) had come a long way in college track and field, I was flabbergasted to learn that Arkansas had taken the top spot in both mens' and womens' track. That shows my ignorance about the sport I guess, as it is logical to assume that the Hawgs have been building to this point over a period of years. Still can't think of the track meets in Eugene and not think of the Ducks as a powerhouse in this sport. ,What happened?

B1G basketball seems to crap out in the Big Dance just about every year these days. And do you know how long it has been since the B1G actually won an NCAA tournament in men's basketball? Look it up, you'll be shocked.

Thoughtful article in my humble opinion. Other than whoring for dollars, the attraction of the SoCal schools heading to the B1G has always mystified me., Travel issues and its impacts on athletes was the very first thing I thought of. There was also the revulsion of conference betrayal felt by this fan who grew up in California and was a dyed in the wool PAC 8,10,12 guy who unfailingly backed the conference in its intersectional contests. Even after living in the South for 42 years and becoming a Bulldawg guy over the years, I still have a deep fondness for the Westernmost conference. I am going to sound a bit petty here, but I believe marketing concerns was the reason invitations were extended to the SoCal schools, and as the above article suggests, there was no well-articulated plans for the conference's newest members beyond that. The pettiness comes from my hope that the SoCal schools fall on their face. But then again, I have long been a proponent of the view that the B1G is the most overrated conference in America. Thus, the Socal schools may end up faring well there.

When the elders take pride on mentoring the Ducklings you have the beginnings of a winning culture. This does take time and can become self-perpetuating as it has become in Athens. Lanning has seen it there and IMO will be successful at instilling it in Eugene. But as Charles noted, the process takes some time and a little patience on the fans' part.

Yeah SC vs.the Ducks is one game I'd travel for next year.

I have hesitated to respond to this thread for various reasons. I like most of Jon's posts and might like this one except for the inclusion of two teams, UNLV and UTSA that, from a competitive football standpoint, seem to weaken rather than strengthen the proposed conference (although they do add growing media markets). Calling it a super conference seems a real stretch in my humble opinion. Having said that, I admit that I know little about the schools I have called out (other than UNLV has trouble beating University of Nevada Reno) so my opinion is more of a "gut feeling" than a truly informed stance. Just my two cents worth.

I hope you are right Jon about Lanning achieving the kind of success Dabo achieved at Clemson. I think it quite possible if the Ducks make it into the 12-team playoff sooner rather than later, especially if they can win a game or two in their appearances.

As someone who has lived in the Midwest and coped with its harsh winters, I see the attraction of LA for many of these Midwestern kids--and saw it when I lived here. In my opinion, having to travel back to play football 3-4 times a year is no big deal, especially in that most of football season is played before Thanksgiving when the weather is still benign back there. I'd bet in the years ahead that you'll see more starters at UCLA and USC who hail from the Midwest than Western studs playing at the traditional B1G schools. Whether this infusion from the middle would really be enough to move the competitive needle for the SoCal schools remains an empirical (and interesting) question.

I thought about this a bit more and can see how the SoCal schools could benefit competitively from the move. Sorry if already posted, but I think it very likely that SC and UCLA will become very attractive destinations for stud recruits from the B1G footprint. Heck, if I am a Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania kid, I may undoubtedly see the advantage of swapping Midwestern winters for the weather, beaches, and scantily clad chicks of Los Angeles. Am I missing something here?

You are talking my language about the B1G, particularly the final statement about B1G basketball. My prediction about Fickell is similar to what I said about Lanning. Though his roster at Wisconsin is not as favorable as Oregon's was for Lanning, within three years, Fickell's teams will be playing pretty much even with whomever else is good in that division. I feel the same about the coach at Nebraska. These were two great hires.

Not trying to be argumentative necessarily, but three teams of officials, the crew chief refereeing the game, the game replay officials in the booth, and the NCAA referees who responded to Day's protests all concluded that this was neither targeting nor a cheap shot on Harrison, but rather a strong hit to the shoulder. I have seen many replays of this play from five different angles and it seems rather clear that this was not targeting, but rather, a terrific defensive play. Finally, a play that occurred fairly early in the 4th quarter is hardly the reason OSU lost this football game. The biggest factor was that the 2022 Dawgs, in competitive games, proved to be one of the most focused 4th Quarter teams I have ever seen at any level. True, OSU played a whale of a game and made it most difficult, but when the chips were down in that fateful quarter, Georgia prevailed 18-3!

By canceling, OSU will have eight games at home in 2024 and remove a quality OOC opponent in favor of a cupcake. Youngstown State anyone? OSU ought to be upgrading OOC schedule not making it simpler. And eight home games... who else has that?

Yep, I think there will be lots of regrets for the SoCal schools for the move they have made. Travel issues were the first thing to come to mind when I heard about the move to the B1G, and it is going to be a heck of a lot worse for the basketball than for the football teams.

I understand the skepticism Charles but this kid is talented.

I have no quarrel with the Ducks being rated ahead of USC. BUT... Watch out for the dreaded Huskies and even for the Beavs should the Clemson transfer QB hit his stride similar to the way Nix did last year.

Georgia's "cakewalk" schedule is far from their doing. The second game next year was to be a road game to Norman to play OU. The SEC forced Georgia to drop that game, the first of a home and home, because the second part of that home and home was a few years out and probably could not be easily accommodated in the new SEC 9-game scheduling model. The word I have heard is that Kirby Smart wanted to play the game anyway, probably to get his team's competitive juices flowing early like they were for the Ducks game last year. But the request was denied. Georgia is also one of strongest league proponents of the 9 league game model. I suspect that this is the model that will prevail as TX and OK are assimilated next year. But I'm told that several teams would still prefer the 8 game schedule because, by adding a cupcake game rather than a 9th SEC game, it makes it easier for them to become bowl eligible. The 9-game model, which each team having 3 permanent rivals and 6 that rotate, preserves all major rivalries and enables each team to play each of the other teams over a two-year period. It also allows a four-year player to play in every one of the league's stadiums. The way the schedule is now, some teams (e.g., Georgia) have not yet played Texas A&M in College Station, although they have met in Athens. The Georgia fan base, particularly ticket holders. absolutely hate the cupcake games, which are sometimes referred to as "baby seal clubbings." One poll of fans on the Dawg Nation site indicated that fans' favorite schedule in recent years was the 2020 COVID-year slate which consisted solely of 10 SEC opponents. Kirby Smart has said that the best thing about non power-five games is the opportunity to get younger players a fair number of game-time reps instrumental for their development. But he would rather have fewer of these games. I personally would prefer that the schedule require at least one non-league power 5 matchup apart from the SEC schedule. Georgia already has one every year with Georgia Tech . Tech is down for now but they won't be forever. Some fans would rather swap out Tech for a Clemson or Florida State, but given its historical significance, I suspect the Tech game will survive.

Teams that are reasonably talented can catch lighting in a bottle and make a worthy competitor for a natty. Georgia was such a team in 2017, Kirby Smart's second year, losing in OT in the natty to Alabama on a blown coverage in the secondary. Yet, they did not yet have the roster to be talked about again the way they are talked about now until 2021. One team that did catch lightning in the bottle and win the natty was 2019 LSU. Their roster was not very deep, and as a result, they fell well off in 2020 and 2021. The PAQ-12 is improving and is going to be fun watching. But I don't believe that any of the schools yet have a roster that makes them a shoo-in for a playoff berth in a four-team playoff. Should someone out here actually go undefeated, that will solve the inclusion problem, though I don't expect that to happen. A one-loss champ will also have a shot. But there is this perception among the rest of college football that the league is soft-- a perception that can only be overcome by some good intersectional wins against strong programs. Those kinds of wins are not happening often enough. The best in recent memory was the Ducks' win in Columbus two years ago. So, again, I'll conclude that an affirmative answer to the question that prompted this thread is not totally beyond the realm of possibility, but it is highly, highly unlikely. It would be nice to see though if my Dawgs, who definitely have a roster that is playoff worthy, falter along the way and are eliminated.

Well in light of my earlier post which could be framed as pessimistic about the Ducks' chances next year, it is only fair that I report the 4-team picks for the playoffs among ESPN"s college football scribes. Two of the eight writers, David Hale and Bill Connelly, did indeed tab the Ducks in the four-team playoffs. The most popular Pac-12 pick was USC who were picked as playoff participants by 6 of the writers. Georgia and Alabama were tabbed as participants by seven of the eight writers. So there is some support for the Ducks among the pundits and, in my humble opinion, way, way to much support for the Trojans who managed to lose their biggest games with a Heisman QB at the helm.

There are many good analyses above on why competing for a Natty in year two is very unlikely. My take is that the Ducks roster is simply not deep enough with talented players to realistically compete this coming year. But then, again, there is always the possibility of the totally unexpected like this year with TCU which I believe was a far better team than they showed in the Natty against Georgia. Had the question been Can the Ducks realistically compete for a Natty in year 4 of Lanning's tenure, I could well have a different answer for you. In my opinion, recruiting has to pick up even further and the new coaches have to do a bang-up job developing players for that to happen. Getting in the 12-team playoffs should be attainable by year 4, but several (perhaps most ) of those teams will not be realistic options for winning it all. So go Ducks. I hope that you prove me to be a pessimist, and if you do, I'll be rooting for you all the way.

Robinson will have no problem finding a home at Georgia should he play college football. And although Georgia has recruited a mid-level 4 star and a high level 4-star as TEs in this 23 class, they are freshmen and the loss of Darnell Washington was huge. Bottom line: Duce likes Georgia and is a good bet to be a Dawg should he play football. He knows he has a spot there regardless of when he decides to show up. He will be a "flex" tight end most likely in the mold of Brock Bowers (who returns) with roughly the height but not the girth of Darnell Washington. Whoever gets him will have a Dude!

A couple of observations regarding this thread (solely my opinions of course). It is not real clear to me that Harbor is really a football player. I am told that this is the reason Georgia did not recruit him. Of course, he may prove me and the Georgia staff wrong, but my point is that Harbor may be a far bigger loss as a track athlete than as a football player, ranking be damned. Second, and again I could be wrong, but I think Oregon has no shot with Duce Robinson. Current projections are that he is, at best, a second or third rounder in the baseball draft so he'll probably play some college football but doesn't want to sign for fear it could hurt his baseball draft position. The draft is not until June. Georgia has led for Robinson for some time, and the other most likely option, USC may have become less likely after the commitment of TE Lyons to 'SC this afternoon. Of course the distant third for his college commitment is Texas, but with the NIL deals that school is offering, they are never off the table these days.

In my opinion, Stetson has made some awful moves in the past 10 days. Spurning the Senior Bowl was the first. He needed to practice, play and have the opportunity to do interviews with NFL GMs and other NFL personnel to make a favorable impression anywhere he could. He would have been playing under the Chicago Bears OC, perhaps the coach running the offense that could have best used Stetson's attributes under center during the game. For a guy who can succeed in such a system, or in Shanahan's in San Francisco, you've got to strut your stuff when opportunity knocks. And worst of all, rather than being somewhere where he could possibly make favorable impressions, he's out partying ,getting arrested, and doing the exact opposite. Stetson had to win me over, and he did last (and this) year by repeatedly making huge plays in absolute crunch time. It was this ability to lead and to find a way to win that put him on the radar for an NFL shot. He's dug himself a hole IMO and will have to work his living butt off to have any reasonable shot of making an NFL roster now.

I am pretty sure that Williams will be drafted high and have a decent pro career, although among young QBs, I would not take him over Herbert. I said Williams was overrated, not talent challenged. We'll see how far that talent carries him. The problem as I see it is that Lincoln Riley produces "system" QBs that excel in college (look at all the Heismans) but who don't lead their teams to much team success in the pros. Ohio State is another school that produces these "system QBs who don't do much as pros. Can it be argued that these QBs are drafted by lousy teams which brands their lack of success perfectly understandable. Sure, that is a point for debate. But that high bar is not too high to prevent the success of the truly great ones. Case in point: Joe Burrow. He is the last Heisman winner (2019) who, in my opinion, unquestionably was the best college player in the year he won the award. He went to a mediocre at best Bengals team and, now in his third season, is on the cusp of leading that team to its second Super Bowl in those three years. I am just always leery on the true abilities of those " big stats" system QBs who seem almost always to win what I have come to regard as tainted Heisman trophies.

Williams is the most overrated QB in America in my opinion He has the tools to be great and he ran up enough stats against so-so competition to impress the brain dead media types who often don't look beyond stats to determine their Heisman choice. By the metric that counts most in my opinion, winning big games, Williams was the least accomplished of the four Heisman finalists. The other three all got their team to the playoffs: Caleb failed on that metric in the PAC-12 championship game. By my metric, the most accomplished of the four was Stetson Bennett, and Stet was recognized for his leadership and sheer will to win by awarding him the Manning award for 2022 symbolizing the best QB for that season. I am just not all that impressed by Caleb Williams. Perhaps he will change my mind. Time will tell I guess.