Jump to content

Trojan Man

Full Members
  • Posts

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Trojan Man

  1. 11 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

    Except if you look at Florida's future schedules, they have home and homes scheduled with Utah, NC State, Cal, Arizona State, and Colorado (and a 2-1 with UCF) in the next few years.  Maybe Kansas State is not at the level of those schools, but they probably should be.

    Right, I won't say it never happens.  USC has a home and home scheduled with Ole Miss in 2025/26.  But there are more buyers than sellers just by virtue of there being more second/third tier schools than top tier schools willing to play home and homes with the second/third tier schools.  If you want to get deeper into it not all the second and third tier schools should have the same expectations.  Cal and UCF will have a much easier time getting home and homes with top tier opponents than Kansas State because they're in two of the most lucrative recruiting states in the country, unlike KSU.

    tldr complaining about Baylor and Kansas State and TCU not filling their noncon with Georgia and Clemson and Ohio State every year is just ignorance of the business side of college football

  2. 56 minutes ago, statsman said:

    Sure. Let’s look at Baylor. Phil Steele is a handy guide, showing schedules back to 2017. In thatseven year period, Baylor has played a home and home with one P5 team- Duke. 

    TCU, in that period, did play one P5 team. Good news- it was Ohio State. Bad news- it was a one off, at Jerryworld, to provide a recruiting showcase for the Buckeyes. 😂

    KSU played Stanford last year in a similar Arlington one off. And they played a series against one P5 team- Vanderbilt. 
     
    Kansas, of course, played Rutgers and Duke. 
     
    The Big 12 has a real problem with free riders looking for someone else to raise the league profile, so they can take advantage with a good record in conference play (after scheduling three wins in non conference). 

    Kansas State's game against Stanford was the return game of a home and home after playing at Stanford in 2016.  For TV purposes that was a KSU/Big 12 home game last year, not a neutral site game, they just decided to move it to Jerryworld.  They're playing Missouri this year and next and you missed a home and home they had with Mississippi State in 2018/19.  Those are pretty comparable P5 opponents for KSU and the best matchups you can expect a middle of the road program to schedule.  The Notre Dames and Floridas of the world are not too eager to schedule home and homes with the Kansas States and Baylors of the world.

    It's reasonable to expect every team in your conference to pull their weight by scheduling 1 P5 noncon game per year.  It's not reasonable to expect your second and third tier teams to schedule home and homes with other P5's top tier teams.   It wasn't a roll of the dice that caused USC to schedule a home and home with Texas instead of TCU in 2017/18.  For the most part, top tier teams want to schedule other top tier teams.

  3. 13 hours ago, Brothahorn said:

    If anything is going to ruin college football, it won't be the money or playoffs. It will be these bullshit, random reviews to look for penalties. Why even bother having refs on the field if some jackass upstairs is just going to stop play when he wants? Just let the booth ref the damn game. And if the excuse is the human refs can't catch everything then why not review holding, PI calls? Cause they damn sure miss those.

    Absolutely.  Stopping play to review for a targeting that wasn't flagged is complete bullshit.  If it was up to me the booth would only be allowed to stop the game for reviews on scoring plays, change of possession plays or the automatic reviews of targeting flags.  That encompasses the biggest plays most likely to determine the outcome of the game.  Give each head coach two challenge flags for all other plays and if they win both they're allowed to keep challenging until they lose a challenge.  They keep fucking with the rulebook to make games shorter and fit in more commercials when fixing replay is the easiest way to shorten games while also improving the on-field product.

  4. On 9/1/2022 at 3:06 PM, bullet said:

    You shouldn't blame Oregon for that.  That's just the NCAA that thinks agents are the biggest violation anyone can do.  UNC fake classes?  No problem.  Baylor, Montana rape coverups, not a big deal.  Notre Dame killing a student employee by making him stay in a tower during high winds during practice, refusing to pursue sexual harassment case against starter that lead to suicide.  Not our issue.  USC-agent, big deal.  Georgia Tech-agent gives one senior player $300 in clothes.  Player pays him back.  Georgia Tech goes on probation and forfeits their ACC title.

    If I can't use sports to fill my need for irrational, tribalistic hatred what's the fucking point?

    On 9/3/2022 at 4:11 PM, redswingline said:

    I don't know if the problem is that CO or the P12 as a whole doesn't care enough about football. Perhaps its that others care too much.

     

     

    If that's the case Colorado and the rest of the Pac 12 can't be too upset when the programs that care more about football than they do decide to leave.  It's not a good fit for them or for us.

  5. 12 minutes ago, ztejas said:

    I like you to win and probably cover, but this is dumb. They've been a regular pain in your ass for 30 years now. You don't get to throw the series out the window because you like your new coach. 

    The last time I liked USC's head coach he went undefeated in Palo Alto.  Subpar coaching has been USC's biggest problem by far lately.  It's not unreasonable to expect the issues caused by that, such as scoring 3 points at Stanford, to alleviate after replacing Helton with Riley.  It's a night and day difference in how those two run the program, which translates to a night and day difference in results on the field.  Oregon State is the team Stanford was 5 years ago, that's the opponent that concerns me the most after Notre Dame and Utah.

    10 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    Pretty sure I could count on one hand the number of U$C players who aren't majoring in Football.

    They're still spending more time in class this week than any of Stanford's players.  The two programs compete for a lot of the same recruits.  I won't pretend USC doesn't admit some guys that would have no chance at getting into Stanford and points certain players towards gut majors, but each team has a few players the other really wanted which implies either USC has some smart players too or Stanford is also willing to ease up a bit on admissions for the right talent.

    4 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    I think the Stanford D is going to be more helpful than Lincoln and Caleb when it comes to scoring USC points. 

    I saw Stanford lose to K-State in Dallas last year and anything better than losing 33-14 is going to make me happy.

    Although either way, I'll be in a generous mood, still basking in the Texas win earlier in the day. 

    As much as I'd love some upsets to disrupt the seemingly inevitable Alabama/Georgia title game I just don't see it happening this weekend.  Those two are on another level right now.

  6. 13 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    What's your deal?  Stanford looking strong on offense. Little EJ Smith going to roll. 

    Standord Stadium going to be rockin' three weeks before classes start!

     

    12 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

    This is the maddening thing about quarter system universities.  Well, this, and being in school until June.

    It's bad for their attendance and atmosphere, but it gives them an advantage that annoys the hell out of me.  Lately every time USC and Stanford play it's in week 2 or 3, before Stanford starts class, so while our guys have to play school and do homework and take tests while preparing to play Stanford their guys spend the entire week focusing solely on football.  I just checked to verify and not counting CCGs the last time USC and Stanford played past week 3 was in 2013, when Coach O led USC to a big upset over top 5 Stanford.

    29 minutes ago, ztejas said:

    Stanford has won 4 of 5 in PA and that SC score was buoyed by 3 pick sixes.

    I like SC but 9 feels right. Rice at home doesn't mean shit. 

    USC's defense is supposed to be a liability this year so I don't see why "3 pick sixes" is bad.  It's obviously not sustainable, but USC had 4 interceptions against Rice after getting 4 interceptions all of 2021 so if nothing else that's a clear improvement when it comes to havoc.  Anyways, I'd throw out USC's recent record in Palo Alto.  That's even less relevant than the outcome against Rice.  Saturday will be the first time since the 2000s Stanford doesn't have a decisive coaching advantage in this matchup.  USC also won't have questionable QB play like our last couple losses up there.  In 2016 the loss at Stanford was Max Browne's final start at QB (Darnold took over the following week).  In 2018 it was JT Daniels' first road start as a true freshman.  It's a safe assumption Lincoln Riley and Caleb Williams will produce more than the combined 13 points those two QBs did at Stanford under Helton.

  7. 13 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

    Byes are stupid when teams are ranked by human (AP writers’ and biased coaches) eyeballs instead of strictly wins and losses. Huge advantage for the top 4, or should we go ahead and say for Bama, Ohio St, Clemson, and each year’s other top 4 darling. Therefore, it should be 8 or 16.

    The top 4 will be the 4 highest ranked conference champions, which removes most of the subjectivity.  The champions of the Big 10 and SEC will always finish top 4, so that means the other 4 conference champions are fighting over the last 2 top 4 seeds.  I imagine most years it will be fairly obvious who among the ACC/Big 12/Pac 12/G5 champs most deserves a top 4 seed.

  8. 36 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

    The remaining AAC schools have to feel like they just won the lottery.

    Every team outside of the Big 10/SEC should feel that way.  Six champion autobids is the best case scenario playoff format for them.  They'll be able to legitimately sell playoff access to recruits and coaches and their fans.  It's a good move for the health of the sport because it won't feel like the Big 10 and the SEC are playing in a totally different league than everyone else, which means the left out fanbases will still have a reason to keep watching and believing their team can maybe have a dream season.  At that point they're shifting their blame for falling short of dream seasons on their team instead of the system.  If your team doesn't make the playoff and you blame your school for making shitty hires or not prioritizing winning or whatever that can be fixed and you'll keep watching.  If you blame the system having it out for you and fucking you over you're more likely to just throw your hands up and walk away because it feels like nothing can be done to overcome it.

    My one complaint is they plan on only playing first round games at campus and the rest at bowls.  Every game but the title game should be a home game for the higher seeded team.  I suspect this will change after a few years when the teams that always get a top 4 seed start bitching about how they never get to host a playoff home game like the lower seeds.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  9. 50 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

    Portland has a population of about 600K. Similar to Denver. That is why nobody is lining up to grab Colorado in this scenario either except maybe the B12. 

    Denver's metro is almost 3 million, nearly 10x the Eugene metro.  Colorado being a complete joke in football and generally apathetic towards sports is the biggest mark against them.  If their athletic department was committed to success and they were a 7-9 win team most years I think they'd get serious Big 10 consideration.  They check all the other boxes, but their administration just doesn't give a fuck about winning.  A huge problem the Pac 12 had was too many teams were happy to do the bare minimum to collect their media check and Colorado was one of the worst offenders.  The Big 10 already has plenty of 2-4 win teams with a ceiling of 6 wins, they don't need more.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 4 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    Oregon is currently punching above their weight class. Completely agree. They (like Washington) are similar to Wisconsin in B1G or Auburn (minus the titles) in the SEC. No one considers them a blue blood or even close to it, but to say they have no value due to their weak history is not logical.

    For their programs size, history, and few achievements they have great brand awareness and recognition.  When they play big games they get ratings. 538’s analysis has Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, and Florida State as the top 4 teams not in the B1G/SEC/ND.

    Have they peaked?  Maybe, but worst case scenario the B1G has added 2 teams in the growing PNW that together will completely dominate that market.  Add in Stanford and they’d have the whole West Coast locked down which is extremely valuable for TV.

    Give the Big 12 Oregon, Cal, Wazzu, SDSU, Boise, Utah, BYU, Colorado the Arizona schools and they could realistically challenge the B1G with just USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Washington in those markets especially when USC is underperforming.  Pull Oregon and Cal into the B1G and any ‘challenge’ would be theoretical at best.

    USC is butthurt about Oregon stealing their recruits while they’ve been struggling but not nearly as butthurt about Stanford handicapping their conference for decades by squashing every attempt to expand with Texas over the years.

    Stanford is also a smaller school that doesn’t have a huge fan base and has also been punching above their weight class. But Stanford didn’t steal USC’s recruits, and Oregon did, so fuck Oregon, am I right?

    There are plenty of reasons I prefer Stanford in the Big 10 over Oregon.  Only one of those reasons is because of personal dislike towards Oregon.  Also, USC still loses the occasional recruit to Stanford.  Not as many as to Oregon, but usually every cycle there is a player or two USC really wants that goes to Stanford.  The prestige of a Stanford degree is impossible to beat among recruits whose #1 priority is their education.  Blue chip recruits who are serious about their education do exist.  This isn't a recent Harbaugh/Shaw phenomenon, either.  I remember it happening in the Carroll days while USC was on top of the world and Stanford was one of the worst teams in a BCS conference.

    -Stanford is an easy road trip for USC/UCLA.  Oregon is an easier road trip from LA than the Big 10 teams are, but it's not an easy road trip (I'm talking solely about distance, not quality of the opponent).  LA to Eugene is the exact same distance in the air as Austin to Ames but I've never heard anybody claim Iowa State is an easy road trip for Texas.  Three California teams in the Big 10 means they all get 1 CA road game per year, which will help significantly with travel.  That also helps cut down travel for all other sports.

    -There are more USC/UCLA fans in the Bay Area than Eugene.  I'm guessing here, but it seems like a safe assumption that every Big 10 school also has more fans in the Bay Area than Eugene.  That directly translates to more booster club events and parties and alumni engagement centered around football weekends when your team comes to visit.  It's also not hard for visiting fans to get tickets to a Stanford game.

    -Stanford's academics are second to none in FBS football.  Every Big 10 president will get hard/wet over being in the same conference as Stanford.

    -Northern California isn't as talent-rich as Southern California, but it still produces far more recruits than Oregon.

    -I've given enough non-hater reasons that I can now end with my personal dislike reason.  An Oregon employee helped decide one football player taking benefits to leave for the NFL from an agent with zero affiliation to USC was worth 30 scholarships and a two year bowl ban, an egregious punishment the likes of which hasn't been handed down since then for worse violations at other schools.  They happily fucked over a team in their own conference to help themselves by creating a power vacuum, which also fucked over the entire Pac 12.  It turns out when you burn down the nicest house in your neighborhood while all the neighbors watch and cheer for the arsonists everyone else's property values go down, not up.  Why should USC want to take that kind of bullshit to a new conference?

    You can blame USC for taking a long time to get their own affairs in order after the sanctions ended, but part of our wandering in the wilderness was due to the lingering effects of the sanctions.  A big reason that fucking clown Helton got the job and kept it as long as he did is because of sanction PTSD among the administration.  When you share a conference with schools that would gladly use the NCAA to kneecap you for their own benefit it's understandable to be overly cautious.  Oregon can act pious and righteous over it, but they have no ground to stand on.  Chip Kelly was hit with a show cause for funneling money to recruits during his time at Oregon while the NCAA had absolutely nothing on Pete Carroll despite investigating USC for 5 years with an agenda to cripple the football program.

    • Haha 1
  11. 40 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

    So I guess Oregon St and Washington St are about to get fucked? Mountain West seems like the most likely destination (I know nothing about the conference or its future plans - but seems to make the most sense geographically).  The Athletic had an article about the AAC being an option - and they have a slightly better TV deal than the Mountain West - but that just doesn't seem like it would make much sense.  Going from 35 million a year payout to 5 is a real dick punch for those universities and the towns they reside in.

    Their best case scenario is the Pac survives with at least its current 10 members for one more TV contract.  Both athletic departments (especially Washington State) have a lot of debt which was structured under the assumption they'd continue pulling in Pac 12 checks indefinitely, so you can imagine the sleepless nights for their athletic directors when imagining what they'll do if they have to put together a budget on a MWC media deal.  If they can continue earning in the neighborhood of 30ish million, a realistic goal for the Pac 10 if they keep equal revenue shares, they can spend the rest of the 2020s aggressively paying down that debt and planning for their eventual MWC membership.  If the Pac dies in 2024 both schools will have to beg their state governments for a bailout unless a wealthy donor steps in to save the day, but those are not fanbases known for wealthy donors.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

    The Big Ten's deal starts in 2023.   Best ESPN could do is match them.   

    To make 2023 work, ESPN needs to buy out CBS's deal with the SEC.

    To get Texas and OU to ESPN before 2025, ESPN either needs to pay out Fox AND the Big 12 for those rights, or they need to make made for TV OOC games between Texas/OU and Big 12 members (like Bedlam) that Fox gets.  

    Right, I forgot about the Fox/Big 12 part of the TV deal.  That throws a wrench into it, Fox won't just let Texas/Oklahoma walk away for nothing.  In 2023 Texas plays Alabama while Oklahoma has games with Georgia in 2023 and Tennessee in 2024.  Those could be canceled in exchange for Texas and Oklahoma playing Fox-owned road games against Big 12 teams, but that would probably piss off Alabama and Tennessee because they're getting screwed out of home games after already playing the road half of the home and home.  They would also be on short notice to find a replacement opponent.  Maybe they'd accept a one off home game against Big 12 teams as replacements for those canceled games.  I'd watch Baylor/Alabama and Kansas State/Tennessee and Oklahoma State/Georgia.

    49 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    I agree, its just a lot to work out in one year, when most of it goes away waiting a year.   

    I'm also not convinced Fox wants 6 Pac members.   They could have done that already.   @Trojan Man could chime in on this better than me, but they're the power player with Fox.  My guess is they're putting all their efforts into Notre Dame, not Oregon.   And while I'm sure they'd be willing to let Notre Dame bring a friend from the West Coast, I'd be shocked if they wanted to reinvent the wheel.

     

    My two cents is if Fox/the Big 10 really wanted more Pac 12 teams at this time they'd already be invited.  If they were wanted right now Fox/the Big 10 wouldn't risk them signing a restrictive GOR elsewhere.  Plus, if you're going to bring them in it's better to announce sooner than later just to help them out.  Any Pac 12 teams receiving a Big 10 golden ticket would immediately see an uptick in recruiting and donations and they could start planning for future facilities built with Big 10 money, allowing them to be stronger when they join the conference.  As you mentioned, Stanford is the only Pac 12 team I can see getting a Big 10 invite in the near future and that's dependent on Notre Dame deciding to give up independence.  I expect the Big 10 to go with either 16 or 18 teams for the duration of the next TV contract, then explore adding from the Washington/Oregon/Utah/Cal/Arizona/Colorado pool when it's time to negotiate the next contract.

    Of course, this could all be rendered moot if ACC teams find a way to escape the GOR in the next few years.  If that happens it moves up the endgame timeline and all bets are off.  The Big 10 can't slow play ACC teams like they can with Pac 12 teams because there will be serious competition with the SEC for the ACC's crown jewels.

  13. Seems to me like the cleanest way to give everyone something they want in finalizing the divorce between Texas/Oklahoma and the Big 12 is for ESPN to overpay for the Big 12's next TV contract, effectively paying their buyout for them.  Getting UT/OU to the SEC earlier seems like it would more than offset paying the Big 12 a little more than they're worth.

    -The Big 12 gets a good contract

    -UT/OU go to the SEC in 2023 instead of 2025

    -ESPN gets a 1 year super conference head start on Fox/the Big 10 as opposed to Fox/the Big 10 getting a 1 year head start if UT/OU stay in the Big 12 until 2025

    -ESPN owns 3 conferences, plus if they want more late night coverage without paying for the Pac 12 the Big 12 can likely poach whoever they want from the Pac 12 with their shiny new above-market contract

    The only potential problem is CBS' contract with the SEC running through 2023.  They'd have to come to some kind of deal, like ESPN buying out CBS a year early or trading their 2023 Big 10 rights for CBS' 2023 SEC rights.  I'm not sure what the magic number would be to get the Big 12 to agree with this so I'll leave that to those more knowledgeable about the Big 12's media value.

  14. 1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

    1. The only reason CU won was because of the coach, who bought players. That coach is gone. He's not coming back. Oregon works from the admin level, not the coaching level. For this reason, there's no comparison between the two programs' future success. I don't consider paying employees for their work to be dirty. It's actually dirty NOT to pay them when you're running a billion dollar empire. I do consider all the other stuff going on at CU very dirty.

    2.Why Oregon isn't being snatched up? Says who? Fanatics on the internet? No one, including the so-called journalists, have a clue until something actually happens. USC was "snatched up" because they called the B1G and begged to get in. I know the fanatics don't want to believe this, but these conferences actually do have to be careful about tampering. B1G can't just start adding a bunch of PAC schools at the same time as USC/UCLA because of not only tampering concerns, but because Stanford, Cal and most of the rest of the PAC would have blown up the deal and USC/UCLA would still be in the PAC. It was done in secrecy with the intentions of now fielding calls for future expansion. Once the dam is broke, it's more likely other programs will follow suit. B1G also now has leverage, as the PAC couldn't survive any losses (other than OSU,WSU), and can probably get other programs at a bargain.

    2a. Cristobal left Oregon for one reason: Miami is his alma mater and has promised to pay players through NIL. 

    2b. Oregon has no more flaws than any other PAC program. I guess Washington may have more value, with their huge cable subscription advantage and fairly large fan base.

    I've lived in Vancouver, Washington, and this holds no water. It isn't 1950 anymore. Oregon State isn't even P5 worthy. Oregon owns that state. Oregon owns part of southern Washington as well. PNW area has plenty of rabid sports fans. This isn't California or Arizona. It's much closer to Utah, but with more people. This reminds me of Clemson fans in South Carolina. Clemson is winning big right now, but South Carolina actually owns that state. It's not even close. If you look at Clemson's viewership, considering the level of success, it is lacking. Oregon probably has more fans than Clemson.

    "Marketing creation built on paid recruits." You just described the majority of the most successful programs in America. Honestly, every program is supposed to be the front porch of the university. It's a marketing machine. The paying players part involves most winners in the NCAA, including USC and Ohio State. USC's entire history is built on paying players. How do you think the private school in the hood won so much? Go look at their history. Most of the fighting in the early days of the PAC was the PNW schools getting the California programs in trouble for paying players. USC always whined and said it wasn't true! Despite all the evidence to the contrary. USC used to fight it and has managed to get away with a bunch of stuff over the past 70 years. Even with the escapes, they're still one of the most penalized programs of all time. UCLA's entire basketball success was built on paying players before the days of the shoe companies.  But you're going to blame Oregon for finally joining them in an attempt to level the playing field? It's only an issue when Oregon elects to start paying? Generations and generations after the southern schools started the so-called deed?

    Sweat shops? You are correct, but don't let me get into just about every other corporation, lawyer, university, religious organization and politician in the world. It's all turned dirty. This includes in our very own backyard. You may want to back off on that statement or be willing to call out all the dirty deeds around here as well. I'm all for the call outs BTW. It's time this country wakes up and starts looking in the mirror. All the above I mentioned is beyond filthy and needs a complete restructure. Probably a better topic on another forum.

    Again, every consistent winner does this. USC is the worst and the first in the PAC at doing this. It's the only way the private program from the hood was ever going to beat out UCLA for the recruits in the old days. The old days was also much more about strength than speed, something the northern schools had more of during that time period. There's also this thing called NIL and the fact that all these moves right now are a precursor to paying the athletes a salary. The commissioner of the B1G is already in talks with players about eventual payments down the road. The commissioner of the B1G actually sees your "bidding war" as a positive point in favor of Oregon to the B1G. And make no mistake about it, he's (w/ TV execs) pushing all the buttons with tOSU's support. The crazies at Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. will shut up and do as they're told.

     

    This is actually a good post, although the recruiting part doesn't hold up. Here's why:

    1. Yes, all this realignment has happened because of the B1G. It's pretty hypocritical for them not to stand up and just say it. They point fingers when they are the one's who started all this. But that's the B1G for you. They've always been the biggest hypocrite in the room. Just like their complaining, back in the day, about paying players while some of their programs had old men fucking a bunch children and then covering it all up. Not to mention, Ohio State has one of the largest pay for play schemes in the whole business.

    2. Two biggest reasons the B1G has been forced to expand over the years: lack of recruiting territory and too much deadweight at the bottom of the conference. If you take a look at your map, remove the top 4 recruiting hotbeds of California, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Now, there's not a whole lot left, but if you look at the NE you will see a somewhat blue area of New Jersey and Maryland. It's not much, but there's not much out there after the Big 4. How has that helped recruiting in New Jersey? Rutgers isn't getting the top players in their own state. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State have always landed talent there. The fact is, the SEC has actually recruited very well there since Rutgers joined the B1G. The point? It doesn't matter about recruiting territory if the new programs can't actually land players in the recruiting territory. Oregon can actually land top ranked recruits. It's why they will eventually be included in the B1G, if there's expansion out West.

    You didn't answer my question. You said if Oregon and Washington had any value they would have been able to save the PAC. My counter is that makes no sense. If you want to cry on that hill, then USC is worthless because they couldn't save the PAC by themselves. I don't actually think USC is worthless. I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold up.

    I've already answered your recruiting pitch above in another reply. Landing recruits is more important than actual recruiting territory. They both do matter. B1G is never going to outdo the SEC in recruiting territory. They need to make sure every program added can recruit.

    Why are you scared of Oregon and their recruiting in California? You or some other Trojan fan actually admitted this last month. "Oregon is taking our recruits." If you could get away with it, you'd invite Mater Dei HS for the easy win? I'm just here to say the old days of easy wins and manipulating schedules is about to be a thing of the past. We are in the last decade of it. 

    BTW, Oregon is going to continue to recruit well in California, whether they're in the B1G or not. 

    You're gonna bet the house Oregon isn't eventually in the B1G, if they expand with more PAC programs? 

    B1G may take Stanford first, because of the future possibility of ND, but they aren't leaving out Oregon and Washington in the long term.

    No one has to pay for themselves anymore. This is what is getting lost in the shuffle on here right now. The journalists are completely lost on what is going on. The biggest programs are joining together to eventually increase the number of conference games played. That alone eliminates the cupcake schedules; allows commissioners/TV execs to create fair and competitive schedules for all teams; and increases TV viewership. The new scheduling will boost revenue and a deal will eventually be made to pay the players. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and it's going to be a massive windfall for the Big 2.

    TRUTH.

     

    It's got nothing to do with being afraid of Oregon.  After Notre Dame recently added a FCS team to a future schedule USC is the only school left to have never played a FCS team.  USC still routinely schedules games against other top P5 teams in addition to the annual game with Notre Dame + 9 conference games, unlike certain teams and conferences that absolutely refuse to play more than 9 games per year against P5 competition, so take that high school shit somewhere else.

    My opposition to Oregon getting into the Big 10 is based on a lifetime of experience being in the same conference with them and not seeing all these magical benefits that keep getting brought up in their favor.  Phil Knight and the Nike connection is a big myth.  I've never heard any fans or employees of Pac 12 schools talk about how Nike pays them more or treats them better because they regularly play against Nike's baby.  Oregon isn't an elite academic institution so no points there.  And I'll bring up media value again.  Oregon benefits from USC's media value, which is why they were one of the ringleaders for equal revenue sharing (of course, the assholes immediately dropped their decades-long history of supporting equal revenue shares and demanded unequal revenue sharing after the LA schools dipped out and it was their turn to be on the losing end of equal revenue sharing).  Oregon needs exposure in LA to recruit, USC could care less if they never play another game in the state of Oregon after leaving the Pac 12.  You can claim that doesn't matter, but I'll point out Oregon's own actions to prove it does.  They wouldn't be desperately trying to reunite with USC and UCLA in the Big 10 and exploring the stopgap of San Diego State joining the Pac in the meantime if they didn't think this was important.  When the Pac 12's divisions were established the California schools were split up because Oregon and the rest of the PNW schools demanded more games in California for recruiting purposes, then they made us act like it was a gift from them to keep playing our regional rivals yearly while the PNW schools got that for free since they were all in the North.  If Oregon doesn't get into the Big 10 I guarantee they would still schedule home and homes with USC or UCLA if offered.

    Oregon reaps massive financial and recruiting benefits from being associated with USC.  What does USC get in return from Oregon?  They fucking hate us (and not just for being good/when we're good), they use their employees to sanction us so they can prop themselves up (Bush's benefits from an agent to leave USC were peanuts compared to what recruits legally get now from boosters to go to schools btw) and they generally act like a bunch of disrespectful shitheads towards USC.  Yeah, Oregon fields a quality football team most of the time.  But the value of that is diminished going forward.  They don't win titles so no conference-wide prestige from that.  Unlike the Pac 12 where it's a constant battle to fill your schedule with teams that get a little respect from voters, once in the Big 10 USC won't need help with strength of schedule or quality wins or opponents people outside the West Coast care about.  I hope that explains why I'm not too eager for this relationship to continue and why the LA schools aren't exactly tripping over themselves to help Oregon.  It's always been a totally one-sided relationship and the one side getting all the benefits can't even be a little thankful for it.  All that being said, Oregon probably does get in the Big 10 eventually.  But hopefully we can go through at least one full TV contract with Oregon panicking about their future while every 5* and high 4* goes to the Big 10 or SEC and watching Rutgers earn 3x more media revenue than them.

  15. 22 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

    To me the map shows why it's critical that the B1G have both a West division and a SE division, and the SE division needs to have UVA/UNC/GT and either FSU/Miami (or both if that works out somehow, but I doubt the SEC is going to let that happen).

    The SEC will have no interest in GT and they won't take both FSU/Miami, the only real battle between the SEC/B1G will likely be UVA/UNC.  UVA admin was supposedly wanting to join the B1G back when they added Maryland, no clue what UNC would prefer - athletic boosters would probably want SEC, admin would probably prefer B1G.

    I agree for the most part.  If it was up to me the Big 10 would expand to 20 in 2024 with Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington and Utah then wait for the ACC's GOR to either expire or get overturned in court.  That's far enough in the future it's impossible to accurately predict who/what the networks will prioritize or how much the next wave of contracts will be worth, but I don't think it would be out of the question for the Big 10 to land both Florida State and Miami.  I imagine they'll want to stick together and if the SEC doesn't offer them that possibility the Big 10 definitely would.

    It will be interesting to see how willing the SEC is to add more teams in their backyard just to keep the Big 10 out, as well as how the Big 10's national strategy vs the SEC's regional strategy plays out in terms of competitiveness and ratings and recruiting and media money.  I can see strengths and weaknesses for each approach.  It's very fun to ponder if you're into game theory.

    • Like 1
  16. 2 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

    That makes no sense at all. Why wasn't USC able to save the PAC then? Under your own admission, USC must be worthless because they weren't able to get the entire PAC a better contract. That makes no sense at all.

    Comparing Oregon to Illinois just shows you're way too biased for this subject. You can go look at just about any list that rates the value of any program and there's no comparison.

    USC/UCLA didn't increase the value of the B1G. It's the B1GN that made up for it and that's not the future of television. Should the B1G tell USC no? Of course not. That would be stupid.

    There is only one team available in all of college football that increases the pie: Notre Dame. That doesn't mean adding top programs won't increase the pie later down the road. Oregon consistently playing in more competitive games against larger fan bases will increase their ratings. Same goes for all the other top programs. This is the new reality of college football. This is about top programs vs. top programs and eliminating everyone else from the regular season schedule. Why do you think I've been harping about an expansion in conference games on here for months? And Warren just mentioned going to ten conference games at some point? At some point, it's going to be more than ten conference games. That's where we are heading. That's where the money is at.

    The PACs weaknesses had nothing to do with Oregon and Washington and everything to do with the conferences region, the weak programs at the bottom and no fan bases as large as Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame to cover up for the weaknesses. Not even USC has a large enough fan base to cover for more than maybe one team, and that team better bring at least something of value. USC's fan base is not Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Notre Dame. USC's strengths' are recruiting, tradition, and competitiveness. It's a helmet school with the biggest recruiting advantage in the country. Its fan base is the smallest of all the Bluebloods. 

    If all PAC 12 teams were equal to Oregon and Washington, the conference would still be around.

    PAC 12 weaknesses: 

    1. Playing only out West

    2. None of the very largest fan bases to cover for weak teams

    3. You cannot carry Washington State, Oregon State, two uninterested programs in passive NorCal, two programs in Arizona and expect to survive with no Ohio State, Michigan type fan bases to cover up for it.

    Oregon and Washington had nothing to do with the downfall of the PAC or its money issues.

    Oregon brings another helmet program with speed that the B1G desperately needs in its conference.  B1G's two biggest issues are competitiveness and recruiting territory. They solved some of that with USC/UCLA. It also makes no sense to stop at two teams in that time zone. You really need at least 4 solid teams to make sure there's a competitive game worth watching in the late time slot.

    Washington brings more of its over 4,000,000 Seattle metro and 7,500,000 state pop than Stanford brings the 7.7 San Francisco metro area. There's no difference in the two in size, other than one (Washington) has a much bigger following and has fans that actually care about the team.

    Oregon out-recruits Stanford every year.

    Stanford will get in because of Notre Dame and the fact the B1G still needs more teams in that time zone.

    It's going to be Oregon, Washington, Stanford in the B1G at some point.

     

     

    USC's attempt to save the Pac was the Pac 16, which was my preferred outcome for the super conference era.  Ideally there would have been a super conference composed entirely of teams west of the Mississippi to serve as a counter balance to the center of the sport's universe continually shifting towards the Southeast and the Midwest.  A conference with USC/Texas/OU at the top and a middle class of Oregon/Washington/UCLA/Stanford/Oklahoma State/Tech would have received a huge media contract on par with what the Big 10 and SEC earn, plus the geography breaks down in such a way you could give each team the 3 yearly matchups that preserve every regional rivalry, but it wasn't meant to be.

    USC was worth 30% of the Pac 12's media value despite the last decade of mediocrity, they're the last team to point at for not doing enough to save this conference.  Also, why save a conference where you account for almost a third of the revenue while only being paid 8.3%?  I wouldn't stay at a sales job where I generated 30% of the company's revenue but was paid the exact same as the slapdicks contributing 2% because said slapdicks consistently outvoted me to make everyone's salary equal all while management insisted the slapdicks were just as important and valuable to the company's success as me.  In the Big 10 USC won't be the only horse pulling the cart, which makes equal revenue sharing with the teams riding in the cart much more palatable.  My comparison of Oregon to Illinois was more flattering for Oregon than Illinois.  The only way Oregon increases the Big 10's value is if they replaced a team like Illinois because Oregon is worth more than them so that would increase the per team share.  Oregon is not worth enough to increase everyone else's 80M slice of the pie while also paying for their own slice as team #17.  Adding more teams also means fewer matchups between the teams.  Is getting more Oregon/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State games worth getting fewer games between USC/Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State?  TV executives were having wet dreams about the latter games when the Big 10's next TV contract was negotiated, not the former.

    The map Zinhead posted drives home the point I'm trying to make with recruiting and why Oregon is a bad idea.  The Big 10 desperately needs more recruiting territory.  It's the lifeblood of the sport.  The SEC has Texas, Georgia and Florida plus the rest of the Southeast punches above its weight in producing recruits so recruiting territory isn't as critical of a consideration for SEC expansion as it is for the Big 10.  Texas and the Southeast are also all growing in population while most Big 10 states are falling or stagnant.  That's another reason I'm OK with Utah getting into the Big 10, they already produce some talent every cycle and with their rapid population growth I can see them becoming a better recruiting state in 10-20 years.  If you invite Oregon you add nothing in terms of recruiting territory but you're giving that program a huge shot in the arm to make life harder for your teams on the recruiting trail.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 14 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    Obviously in conference realignment the most successful thing you can do is to add a jewel (UT/OU/USC/ND), but now there is literally only 1 of those left.

    The second part of conference realignment is to raise the bar strengthen your middle and lesser your weaknesses. Washington and Oregon are the only programs in the P12 that everyone agrees would slot into the middle of the Big Ten alongside Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa.

    Hate Oregon, that’s cool, but to act like they have no value is asinine.

     

    4 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

    Yeah, no. 

    Washington and Oregon are much better than the Baylors and TCUs of the world and you know that. You don't want them in the B1G because, as you've already stated weeks ago, you don't want the competition. Oregon is stealing our recruits!

    Baylor and TCU have no fans and recruit overlooked kids with testing numbers. They also bring no new territory. There is no comparison with Oregon and Washington.

    Washington and Oregon would both rank in the top half of the B1G in revenue generated and competitiveness. They aren't tOSU, Michigan, Penn State or USC but there's only a handful of teams that can hang with that group. Both programs easily rank as two of the top 25 most desirable programs in the country.

    If you take B1GN into consideration, Oregon and Washington will bring plenty of money to the B1G. Washington, in reality, with the B1GN revenue, would pay for itself. A lot of the numbers thrown around in the media are nothing more than public negotiation IMO. I imagine the B1G will make the new teams take a pay cut for the first contract. B1G has the leverage to do that right now. If they take both Stanford and Cal, they're going to be losing revenue and will make Oregon and Washington assist in paying for it.

    In order to have a quality late night game every week, the B1G needs more options out west.

    The B1G, considering the lack of quality in the lower half of the league, still needs more helmet schools with speed. The lack of speed in the conference makes it a complete joke. Ohio State is the only program that remains competitive in the College Football Playoff.

    Oregon, along with USC, brings speed and Washington is a solid program. UCLA has the potential to bring speed, if they get the program turned around.

    Oregon would increase the Big 10's value if they were replacing a clunker like Illinois, but that's not happening.  As a standalone?  They do not increase everyone's $80M slice of the pie.  Neither do any other Pac leftovers.  This whole thing is about making as much money as possible.  If you don't grow the pie why should you get an invitation to the party?  Again, if Oregon (or any other Pac leftover) was valued that highly by the networks it would have been reflected in previous Pac contracts and it would be reflected in current Pac TV negotiations.

    Half-shares for the first contract are a possible workaround, but then you're gambling on Oregon bringing enough value to be worth a full share for the next contract.  If they go through a decade in the wilderness in the 2020s like 2010s USC and Texas they aren't worth anywhere near that much and they don't have the clear path back to contention USC and Texas do.  Stanford is the only Pac leftover with a realistic shot at joining the Big 10 in the near future and that's almost entirely because Notre Dame would insist on it plus the Irish would bring enough revenue to cover Stanford and then some.  Unlike Oregon, Stanford at least brings a market and recruiting territory (USC's/UCLA's sphere of influence doesn't expand to the Bay Area) and the most elite academics in major college football so there are some perks to having them around.

  18. 14 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

    I don’t think anyone at home on a Texas board really cares what condom or their fans want.

     

    When they're discussing possible Pac/Big 10 realignment moves in the realignment thread maybe they do.  I'm guessing the enthusiasm for Texas moving to the SEC would be watered down quite a bit among Texas fans if the SEC also added Baylor, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State so you have to keep playing them and play fewer games against Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU etc.  That's what bringing all the Pac leftovers to the Big 10 would feel like from USC's and UCLA's perspective.  And this sentiment isn't solely among sports fans.  Administrators and leadership at most of the Pac schools don't get along with each other.  It was never a "Sing Kumbaya around the campfire and all cheer for one another" conference like the SEC, it's a bucket of crabs.  From a decision-making perspective, if the leftover Pac teams were valuable enough to grow the Big 10's massive TV revenue the Pac 12's media value wouldn't have been getting lapped by the Big 10 and the SEC in the first place.

    2 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

    Holy shit, that’s one sentence.

    Here's the rewrite: Pac teams bad Big 10 teams good, leave the Pac teams in the Pac.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Fuck You 1
  19. I'll say it again, but it would be a huge disappointment to leave behind the boat anchor of the Pac 12's "Non-revenue sports are equal to football and parity is more important than championships and we're going to play our biggest games late at night when everybody is asleep or drunk off their ass" athletic departments for a conference that plays its biggest games when people are actually paying attention and prioritizes football as #1 instead of pretending soccer and women's equestrian are just as valuable as football only to be told "Here's your new Big 10 schedule: you play UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington all at 10 PM ET every year and maybe you can play prime time games against Ohio State or Michigan or Penn State or Wisconsin once every 4 years."  What was the fucking point of leaving the Pac 12 in the first place if it's just going to be rebranded as the Big 10?  Washington and Stanford can come, that's enough to alleviate travel problems and lock down the West Coast and uphold the academic circle jerking and not feel like we're just merging the Pac 12 with the Big 10.  Utah would be an acceptable replacement if Stanford decides they want to go the Ivy League route or the state of Washington attaches Washington State to the Huskies.

    Fuck the rest of the Pac 12, they're reductive deadweight.  If they weren't the Pac 10 wouldn't be circling the drain right now.  I want nothing more to do with the clowns in Berkeley after 2023.  USC no longer having to give a shit what Cal thinks about anything is one of the best parts of joining the Big 10.  If Cal doesn't give a fuck about their own football program I don't see why anyone else should be concerned about their fate.  That's such a garbage athletic department to rub elbows with, I'm thrilled to leave them and their hostility towards sports behind.  Oregon can go fuck themselves.  Leaving them to rot in the Wac 10 is nice payback for one of their athletic department employees participating in the absurd sanctions handed down to USC and using that to prop themselves up.  Leaving out Oregon isn't purely a spiteful move, either.  Every Big 10 team should be opposed to it.  Oregon is never signing another top shelf California recruit if they don't get into the Big 10 (that's how they make their living), which would be beneficial for USC and UCLA and every Big 10 team hoping to recruit California better now that the LA schools are in the conference.  If you bring Oregon you just make your own recruiting harder while gaining nothing new because Oregon produces next to no FBS talent.  They don't bring enough revenue to offset the problems they'd cause in recruiting with a good coach, they don't win national championships to bring the prestige that comes with rings and they're a stepping stone program that is one bad hire away from 5-7 win irrelevancy.  If there were any upsides to being in the same conference with Oregon I would have noticed them at some point.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  20. 3 hours ago, HouClone said:

    If it goes to a 16 game playoff and Sankey and Warren are successful in strong arming everybody for no automatic qualifiers and all committee rankings, this could mean as others said here 6 SEC teams, 6 Big 10 teams, ND, 3 others.  This could cheapen Rivalry Week and cheapen the conference Championship games. 

    You have the Iron Bowl with 9-2 Alabama and 10-1 Auburn.  LSU is at already at 10-1 for the SEC West heading to the championship game.  Saban and Auburn's coach trot out 2nd string QBs so that they don't get hurt as Alabama and Auburn are expected into the CFP playoffs.  At halftime, 2nd stringers are in and 3rd stringers come in the 4th quarter.   

    In the championship game, LSU is up 21 pts at half.  Florida's coach pulls a Dan Mullen and starts sending in 2nd and 3rd stringers as Florida is also guaranteed a spot in the CFP. 

    Same goes for Ohio State and Michigan as they take it easy on their players to get them healthy for the Championship game or for the playoffs.    

    Rivalry week in future years ends up being Week 9 or 10 with a non-conference crap team schedule Week 12 for the SEC and Big 10.   What a sh!t show. 

     

     

     

    Homefield advantage for the higher seeds in the playoff is how you prevent this.  Nobody is resting starters when another loss is the difference between a first round game of hosting UCF vs traveling to Penn State.  Moving playoff games other than the title game to campus is the silver lining of college football becoming more and more all about the money.  Why continue giving bowls a cut of the revenue when you can keep it all and also make things easier on your fans by not requiring them to travel every round?  On campus games are so much more fun both in person and on TV than some sterile NFL stadium that is a thousand miles away from each team.

    • Hook 'Em 5
  21. 1 hour ago, 'stache said:

    I think both BIG and SEC will be 24 soon and if the number I saw on ND is true they'll stay independent (no way BIG schools refuse to schedule them if they go that route). I really wish it would just happen now and not another ten years. If both raid the ACC they could probably just have it dissolved.

    BIG adds: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, Duke, UNC, UVA, and one other (Pitt, GT, maybe BC for the TV market to the extent it still matters, possibly KU or CU?).

    SEC adds: Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, and some combination of OKST (please?), KU (if not BIG), GT (if not BIG), WVU and maybe Pitt?. Maybe SEC sticks with 20 or so. I just hope it gets determined by 2024. 

    Everyone else forms a new coast-to-coast conference.

    I wish we could get to the endgame now too, but it won't happen until we're closer to the end of the ACC's GOR.  That's the key to getting to a spot where this dumbass sport can finally have some real stability.  It's in ESPN's best financial interests to keep the ACC together, the Big 10 doesn't want enough ACC teams to singlehandedly kill off the ACC and everyone else not chosen for the Big 10/SEC will go through a phase of denial and thinking they're too good for the Big 12 and holding out hope for a Big 10/SEC golden ticket like the leftover Pac teams are doing right now.

    ESPN's deal with the ACC is the biggest bargain in their portfolio.  Why move a few of those teams to the SEC where they'll have to pay them several times more than what they get in the ACC?  ESPN still gets enough big ACC games to keep the conference alive (ACC/SEC rivalry games, Notre Dame visits, Clemson/FSU/Miami have a lot of future noncon games with LSU, Georgia, Alabama, A&M, Auburn, Florida so the huge discount they get on the ACC side of those home and homes offsets what they're paying the SEC).  Pray for some ACC teams to successfully challenge the GOR in court if you want this drama to end before the 2030s.

  22. 1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

    This is untrue, they'll watch.  Even if they don't, the fan bases of the Power 2 programs are so massively large in comparison, and the matchups are going to be so much better that every week will be must-see TV when it's TX/Bama, TX/Georgia, TX/FL, TX/OU, TX/Auburn, etc, no one is going to miss that.  And if some G8 fans don't watch, that's fine because it will MORE than be made up for by new fans watching awesome football at the highest college level.

    I have some apprehension about this.  Super conferences will lead to more losses for programs that demand better because they play each other more often.  Lets say Texas or Oklahoma plays the five straight games you just outlined to open SEC play and they go 1-4 or 2-3 in them.  How much hype is left around their season?  Do you feel better about that than if you opened Big 12 play 5-0 or 4-1?  Will 7-4 OU playing 6-5 Arkansas in a forced rivalry during rivalry week be a bigger deal than Bedlam was last year between a pair of top 10, 10-1 teams?  I watched every play of that Bedlam game but I wouldn't tune in for a snap of that hypothetical so-so OU/Arkansas game.

    The teams that win will kill it in ratings, but there will be far fewer fucks given about 7 win SEC OU than there have been about 10-12 win Big 12 OU.  And football at the highest level isn't always awesome.  90% of the semifinal games have been complete shit.  Dating back to the BCS more title games than not are terrible.  I know the difference in money between Big 10/SEC and non-Big 10/SEC is forcing everyone who can to join the Big 10/SEC just to keep up but it's hard to convince myself consolidating every big time program into two conferences is healthy for the sport.  There's a reason no pro league puts all their best teams/biggest draws into the same division or two.

    • Hook 'Em 7
  23. Even beyond the financial aspect, promotion/relegation in college sports is an absurd idea because of the inherent roster churn and limited eligibility.  When teams (especially G5 teams) massively overachieve and have the kind of historic year that could get them promoted one big reason you'll always see is because they have a very experienced roster full of 2-4 year starters that know their system/playbook like the back of their hand, have maxed out their physical development, have lots of chemistry playing together etc.  They have massive turnover the following year because all those guys graduate.

    Cincinnati last year to this year is a prime example.  They are losing a ton of talent from their playoff team.  They won't totally fall off because they have a good staff and they have recruited well for their level of competition, but if their playoff run got them promoted to the Big 10 for this upcoming season they'd get their asses handed to them breaking in a bunch of new starters recruited to play in the American.  Then they either get sent back to the American, or if they have some kind of adjustment grace period now they're selling "Come help us win 6 games and make some Tuesday night bowl in December" to recruits and trying to survive as a little fish in a big pond instead of the big fish in the little pond.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  24. 6 hours ago, BevoSwag said:

    So if the B1G has negotiated a huge payout per school, equally, including USC and UCLA, how would adding four more to dilute the pot of gold be received by the old members?

    If I had to guess Notre Dame gets a full share no matter when they join and anyone else from the Pac gets a partial share for the duration of the contract that was just signed.  If Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington etc were worth enough to increase the size of the Big 10's pie upon expansion to 18/20/22/24 teams the Pac wouldn't be getting dogshit TV offers and facing extinction.  The only exception might be Stanford.  If they're the final piece of the puzzle for the Big 10 to land its Irish white whale they could start at a full share too.

    I can't believe Maryland and Rutgers have the nerve to bitch about not being treated as favorably as USC and UCLA.  Those are the two luckiest athletic departments in the country.  They need to thank whatever deities they believe in they have a spot in a super conference.  Their value falls by the day because cable subscriber numbers are only going down, and once we reach the final point of everyone streaming directly from the source their value is zero.  Warren should tell them the only concession they'll get is a waiver of exit fees if they think they can do better elsewhere.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  25. 3 hours ago, Homercles said:

    Drunkest I ever got during that whole decade, besides my bachelor party, was the night we lost to ISU.  I knew it was over, and later watching the ‘game of the century’ I got a serious case of what-coulda-been…like a lot of folks.  Who knows what we’d have done against a defense full of NFL players but it sure woulda been nice to try.  
     

    Oh well.  

    On the other hand, your defense would have had an easier night against LSU than they did against Stanford.  Luck was 10x the QB of anyone who suited up for that year's sham title game and Stanford had a pretty nasty ground game that year too so they weren't one-dimensional.

×
×
  • Create New...