2002duck

I haven't been to any NFL Mock Draft sites lately, but I thought the assumption was that Flowe was projected to be a Round #1 pick or #2 at worst in the next draft.

"Talk" being betting lines at an online sports betting site! This is what it's come to for us! Basically it's a gambling site trying to make easy money off of the emotions of desperate fans. The betting line only pays out if one of the schools gets into the Big 10 or the SEC in the year 2022. Yikes!

What I got out of the article was that the writer recognizes that ND owed the ACC absolutely nothing when they joined the ACC for football for one year, yet he goes on to say it sure is darn unfortunate that the ACC couldn't convince ND to join in football (and hockey) permanently, and by doing so be on the same sinking ship the ACC finds itself in. I mean, yeah, obviously. That's why Notre Dame didn't do it. The article doesn't really dive into what Clemson might do, or how things will shake out for the ACC or the PAC- just that Notre Dame has good negotiators.

I love it when writers or critics roll their eyes and deride the most popular sporting league in the United States. I mostly root for the University of Oregon because I attended school there. And though I moved to Eugene near campus in high school (and enrolled at UO while still being in high school), I assign less allegiance to my home city's school than detractors of professional leagues seem to be beholden to. My allegiance is more tied to the actual spirit of studying in the same halls as my peers. I just like sports, and I like sports a lot. And as much as I like the college game for its tradition and good-natured regional rivalries, I don't think hating on the NFL for it's perceived lack of closeness is the greatest take to parrot.

That's how it works. It's like dating 101. The next-best thing often turns out to be the biggest jewel of them all.

That's really too bad. I think UCLA got massaged into all of this. At heart, they are a soft school athletically. A nicer term would be "finessed" or "elegant". These days they win in sports that don't matter, and their legacy is built upon winning in the important sports when nobody was really trying. Some professional athletes still got drunk playing in most major sports even in the 90's. UCLA is hapless. They got a break here. Don't blame them. Just my opinion. Also, I hope ever so dearly that Oregon bolts, and I'd hope people wouldn't begrudge us for doing so.

Well, my uncle was the Blazers beat writer for 20 years for the Oregonian, but they pulled a USC/BIG-10/FOX on him and gave him the slip. He helped get the Portland Tribune get started, and was the sports editor there for ten years or so, but we all know what happens to editor positions in print these days. Needless to say, I haven't had a good "source" in a long time. But I did grow up in Washington, D.C. in the 80's, so I've seen my share of both high-level scuttlebutt and low-life street life. Nowadays I just go to Reddit for up-to-the-minute news and discourse, and then on to fishduck.com for voices of reason.

What's "the PAC"? It rings a bell, but I don't really remember what it was. It's been too long. But seriously, in the worst case scenario where Oregon does not join the BIG-10, the Rose Bowl will most likely not feature the PAC vs. the BIG-10 because the BIG-10 stabbed the PAC in the back. There are hard feelings. The Rose Bowl will probably be rotated into the Playoff rotation, and it might also feature a PAC school (if the PAC exists, which it won't if Oregon and Washington leave) versus an at-large team or a team from any conference except for the BIG-10.

The last time I was roaming the streets the scuttlebutt was that FOX proposed the idea to the Big 10 and USC/UCLA simultaneously.

I don't really begrudge USC and UCLA for bolting. I'm just a bit miffed Oregon and Washington weren't included in the backroom deal. I'm holding out some small hope that the Big 10 made a safe bet thinking USC and UCLA would agree to secretly leave the PAC, and that by getting USC they can rope Notre Dame into the mix, and from there add Oregon and Washington to complete things. Essentially, I'm hoping we're part of the bait. If the Big 10 initially only asked us and USC to leave, I'd expect Rob Mullens to take that in a heartbeat or resign immediately.

Well, to me not going to the Big 10 is not an option. If it comes to it, and it takes $40M upfront to get in then I guess we'd just have to do it. I'd just rather defer or forgo $40M in TV revenue payments than pay an upfront fee. The media and the public would probably cause a stink if teams are "buying their way in" or if conferences are "playing God and taking advantage of schools". Taking $40M less in TV money sounds less scary.

I was thinking that Oregon (not sure UW would do it) should tell the Big 10 members that they will accept a much smaller payout for the first two, three, or four years that they are in the conference. We'd be paid maybe 25% less than the likes of Rutgers and Maryland. That's completely acceptable to me, and might appease Rutgers and UM as they're the ones who might vote against us getting in. I wouldn't suggest that Oregon promise paying a "franchise few", let alone a $40M one. It looks weak and pathetic. You don't want beggars in your conference, it's embarrassing.

Without USC and UCLA the Ducks will have to go undefeated to even be considered for a Playoff spot.

Jon Canzano is a champion for the little guy. He seems to be most interested in talking about anything remotely positive Oregon State does, non-mainstream college sports, and baseball. Every year on his radio/TV show he has his interns conduct a survey on the most popular sports in Portland Metro and in Oregon in general, and every year it is always the same: Oregon Football is #1 by a mile, the Blazers are #2, and then there is a gigantic drop off. Jon invariably sighs and rolls his eyes, and says "Well folks, that's not what this show is all about, I'm here for (insert something about a team or person overcoming adversity)...." Canzano doesn't want to write about the Ducks hypothetically going to the Big 10. He wants Oregon to be more blue collar, to earn it the hard way. He's not a friend of the Ducks.

But the bust is looking more and more like the most likely outcome. The PAC 10 is extremely weak without the LA market, and the Big 12 has nothing to offer. Unless the Pac 10 can merge with the ACC, or at least their best teams, then we're totally screwed. Joining the SEC would be a godsend at that point. Oregon does not have the tv market or a national brand to go independent, but at this point it's just as bad as staying with the Pac.

All of my hopes now rest on Oregon going to the Big 10. Our players are "paid athletes" these days. They can man up and travel on a charter jet to the Midwest, and have zero complaints. What we really need is for ND to join the Big 10, then Stanford, UO, and Washington would complete the conference. Recruiting would nosedive in a hapless Pac/Big 12 conference. We have to let our players play in LA once a year. We have to get them to the Playoffs, even with a loss on our record.

I'm sure they would, it's business. Oregon would bail for the Big 10 at the drop of hat at this point, and you couldn't blame them for doing so. Blame USC and UCLA. Blame the Big 10. Don't blame any one at all. Schools should be trying to get the best deals possible for themselves.

The LA Times reported at 6pm that the Big 10 isn't adding anymore PAC teams at this time. Bad. Very, very bad.

I'm not so sure about that. They could have been thinking that if they told or invited Oregon and Washington earlier, then that would give Oregon and Washington AD's time to talk USC and UCLA out of it. Now that USC and UCLA are in the Big 10, they can reel in Oregon and Washington. They'd have them begging instead of trying to stop it.

It's time for Rob Mullens to earn his keep, too. He needs to tell George Kliavkoff, "Sorry, George. I hate to put you in this position, but if USC and UCLA are going to the BIG 10, we will be doing everything we can to follow them. It's nothing personal."

Wow. This day just keeps getting worse for sports in Oregon. The PAC 12 is dead, Oregon Basketball loses another five star and shows they can't seem to keep them, and the Blazers overpay Simmons on a 4 year/$100M contract. The only good thing that could happen is for Oregon to announce they are applying to join the Big 10, and for the Blazers to trade for Kevin Durant. The Ducks basketball program seems to be hapless when it comes to keeping top talent even when we get it. No hope there.

This is going to hurt us badly in recruiting. We could lose recruits starting tomorrow. Who wants to join a lame Duck conference? Rob Mullens better do everything humanly possible to follow USC and UCLA to the Big 10.

I don't think anyone is worried about where Washington or Baylor are ranked right now. Many people just like seeing 4 and 5 star players announcing to the world that they are committing to Oregon. It's a "what have you done for me lately" society out there. There's a reason why year-round Christmas decoration stores exist. We want to win, and we want to win now!

Well, when I look at most professional/college distance runners I think they're all much thinner and fragile than what a normal person should be, male or female. They're molded that way for a reason, and it's to get the fastest time possible. I personally have no problem with athletes sacrificing their bodies for the glory of victory, but I understand that's definitely not for everyone, and I think UO scouts should be telling recruits they will be periodically tested for biological metrics to get the fastest speeds. If the NCAA bans the practice then the UO can fall in line with the rules at that time.

I agree. I'm getting a bit tired of checking the Reddit college football forum every day and there's tons of big time players committing to other schools. Is our process of allowing players to commit all of a sudden different? Because it's been crickets for us for quite a while.