I cannot copy the whole article, but some interesting tidbits about the position that Oregon currently has. My "CF" references are my comments to his thoughts.

---

"The move to the Big Ten has been a resounding success for the Ducks. They’re a well-funded and highly ranked contender. The UO brand has never been healthier. But Oregon creates its own ecosystem, and that makes me wonder how much regret there will be someday in the Pac-12 footprint.

The new-world finances pencil out on paper for some. It’s why the Los Angeles schools bolted to the Big Ten, after all. Those two schools were chasing larger media rights distributions and more TV exposure on FOX, but I wonder if USC and UCLA would have been better off leveraging their large TV market and negotiating a lopsided ($50 million? $55 million) media rights share in the Pac-12.

Those two schools might have thrived with that advantage, but they may never be viewed as upper-echelon schools in the Big Ten.

CF: Sure they will...when they WIN!

Oregon and Washington are only getting partial Big Ten media rights distributions in the current agreement. The Ducks don’t seem to mind. They’re well-positioned, but they’ve got Phil Knight, the great equalizer."

CF: We didn't have Phil when we went to the Rose Bowl and Cotton Bowl on our own. Winners want to work with winners, and you have to prove-it first. Has Beavis?

Oregon is expected to earn 54 million this year in a partial media payout, with the excess coming from B1G portions of the Playoffs, March Madness, etc.

John...it was all the idiot Pac-12 Presidents that put us all into this position, and now you are taking a side-swipe at Oregon because we are flourishing in the Big-10? You lament about not taking 30 million from ESPN...who decided that? And Apple's offer of 22 million with severe stipulations?

Oregon had a financial gun-to-their-head with those options, and our subsequent success has been EARNED.

Pardon my French, but 🤡 is such a knob. Gaslighting pranks feeding into victimhood. He’s hitched his wagon to the new PAC and should be trying to pivot.

IMO, the PAC was dying a slow death as soon as it didn’t scoop up Texas and Oklahoma to expand, we just didn’t fully realize it until the last media deal expired.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by JabbaNoBargain

To me, the fact that a conference leading showdown between Texas and Oregon on ESPN (via partnership with Pac 12 network) never happened is a huge part of the Pac's demise. Also, just look at all the major media markets that kept hitting the snooze button since the Pete Carol era. LA (SUC, UCLA) Phoenix (ASU), Denver (CU), San Francisco (Cal) and Seattle (fuskies) were all mostly no shows the entire time in football.

Only OBD (Portland), Stanford (San Jose) and Utah (Salt Lake City) were competitive for any long stretches of time. The Pac spent way too much time squandering viewership in it's biggest local markets while thumbing it's nose at a national one (ESPN) while relishing in badminton and tiddlywinks championships. The Pac got what it deserved and sometimes the truth hurts.

57 minutes ago, JabbaNoBargain said:

He’s hitched his wagon to the new PAC and should be trying to pivot.

I think he is playing both sides beautifully; he reports really well on Oregon, but does so also for Beavis. The way he brings out how Oregon is the only former Pac-12 team doing so well....which implies conspiracy, and feeds into the insecurities of Beavis at this time?

Oregon doing well is bad?

Never a discouraging word regarding OSU and WSU's spendthrift waste of millions of dollars in a futile attempt to have a reconfigured, so-called Pac-12 qualify as a Power conference. Or whatever the goal may have been.

Nothing about the two Pac left behinds destroying the Mountain West conference, only to end up with a Mountain West minus Las Vegas, plus Gonzo as CBB partner, and a Texas State program two time zones away.

Journalism is about the search for truth and justice without concern for money, right?