jy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
calumnus said:jy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
On the contrary, I think the former PAC-12 schools are going to become powers in their new conferences. A few years from now people will look back and say "Can you believe they all used to be in one conference?"
ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:jy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
On the contrary, I think the former PAC-12 schools are going to become powers in their new conferences. A few years from now people will look back and say "Can you believe they all used to be in one conference?"
Washington will likely have a tough time withoit a full share unless they want to find 20-30 million yearly deficits until 2030. Phil Knight basically said he'll put an unlimited amount of money into NIL, so Oregon won't be facing the same issue.
Phil Knight is 86. That said, I have no idea how much of an NIL endowment he might leave to Oregon.ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:jy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
On the contrary, I think the former PAC-12 schools are going to become powers in their new conferences. A few years from now people will look back and say "Can you believe they all used to be in one conference?"
Washington will likely have a tough time without a full share unless they want to fund 20-30 million yearly deficits until 2030. Phil Knight basically said he'll put an unlimited amount of money into NIL, so Oregon won't be facing the same issue.
I would imagine his son Travis would continue the legacy.ncbears said:Phil Knight is 86. That said, I have no idea how much of an NIL endowment he might leave to Oregon.ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:jy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
On the contrary, I think the former PAC-12 schools are going to become powers in their new conferences. A few years from now people will look back and say "Can you believe they all used to be in one conference?"
Washington will likely have a tough time without a full share unless they want to fund 20-30 million yearly deficits until 2030. Phil Knight basically said he'll put an unlimited amount of money into NIL, so Oregon won't be facing the same issue.
Travis went to Portland State. But, maybe his inheritance is tied up with fealty to Oregon athletics, or Phil leaves a big endowment for NIL with Travis in charge.juarezbear said:I would imagine his son Travis would continue the legacy.ncbears said:Phil Knight is 86. That said, I have no idea how much of an NIL endowment he might leave to Oregon.ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:jy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
On the contrary, I think the former PAC-12 schools are going to become powers in their new conferences. A few years from now people will look back and say "Can you believe they all used to be in one conference?"
Washington will likely have a tough time without a full share unless they want to fund 20-30 million yearly deficits until 2030. Phil Knight basically said he'll put an unlimited amount of money into NIL, so Oregon won't be facing the same issue.
CNHTH said:
I think Oregon more than any other school is going to struggle (probably not this year but down the line). People forget how many recruits they pulled from the Bay Area and Sacramento. They still might but certainly not to the same degree that they once did.
And it's not just an oregon problem it's a big 10 problem. Oregon, and most big 10 regions simply do not produce recruits. Yes, they still have LA but they traded the NorCal and Phoenix for Wisconsin and Nebraska. Whereas we essentially traded the PNW and Phoenix for Miami and Dallas.
And I know that everyone thinks Oregon's NIL will solve all but the truth of the matter is that a lot of these kids want a game in front of friends and family.
They are in a very precarious position from a recruiting position perspective imho as are most big 10 schools not in LA. They are banking on the notion that they'll have the money to buy any recruit they want and that any recruit they want values money over all else,
Too many hypotheticals for me to think it will work out better for them. And at this point i don't believe it will.
Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more if the donor and institutional investment continues.CNHTH said:
I think Oregon more than any other school is going to struggle (probably not this year but down the line). People forget how many recruits they pulled from the Bay Area and Sacramento. They still might but certainly not to the same degree that they once did.
And it's not just an oregon problem it's a big 10 problem. Oregon, and most big 10 regions simply do not produce recruits. Yes, they still have LA but they traded the NorCal and Phoenix for Wisconsin and Nebraska. Whereas we essentially traded the PNW and Phoenix for Miami and Dallas.
And I know that everyone thinks Oregon's NIL will solve all but the truth of the matter is that a lot of these kids want a game in front of friends and family.
They are in a very precarious position from a recruiting position perspective imho as are most big 10 schools not in LA. They are banking on the notion that they'll have the money to buy any recruit they want and that any recruit they want values money over all else,
Too many hypotheticals for me to think it will work out better for them. And at this point i don't believe it will.
From a Cal perspective, it's notable how my interest in former P12 teams has decreased - other than recruiting, we have little in common.Gobears49 said:
A must read article on Oregon football coach Dan Lanning.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40781349/dan-lanning-journey-commitment-oregon-big-ten-2024
concernedparent said:Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more if the donor and institutional investment continues.CNHTH said:
I think Oregon more than any other school is going to struggle (probably not this year but down the line). People forget how many recruits they pulled from the Bay Area and Sacramento. They still might but certainly not to the same degree that they once did.
And it's not just an oregon problem it's a big 10 problem. Oregon, and most big 10 regions simply do not produce recruits. Yes, they still have LA but they traded the NorCal and Phoenix for Wisconsin and Nebraska. Whereas we essentially traded the PNW and Phoenix for Miami and Dallas.
And I know that everyone thinks Oregon's NIL will solve all but the truth of the matter is that a lot of these kids want a game in front of friends and family.
They are in a very precarious position from a recruiting position perspective imho as are most big 10 schools not in LA. They are banking on the notion that they'll have the money to buy any recruit they want and that any recruit they want values money over all else,
Too many hypotheticals for me to think it will work out better for them. And at this point i don't believe it will.
First off, NorCal prep football is in decline. It is not as important to their recruiting strategy anymore.
Second, Oregon is among the hottest brands in college football, and definitely the hottest on the west coast. They can and have been recruiting nationally for awhile now. Moreover, I bet there are almost as many or even more kids who grow up Oregon fans in our backyard (let's say this is somewhere from Monterey to Modesto, up past Sacramento and then to the coast) as there are that grow up Cal fans. Oregon will still have NorCal kids interested. I looked at their next two classes, 2 Bay Area kids each year and we offered 3 out of the 4 of them.
Third, some combination of money and the perceived potential to be developed into an NFL player seems to be the driving motivation for most 4 and 5 star recruits. Money buys a lot of things, including a flight to Eugene (of which there many direct flights out of SFO every week). For the more budget conscious, it's an 8 hour drive, which is light work for a special occasion.
ncbears said:Travis went to Portland State. But, maybe his inheritance is tied up with fealty to Oregon athletics, or Phil leaves a big endowment for NIL with Travis in charge.juarezbear said:I would imagine his son Travis would continue the legacy.ncbears said:Phil Knight is 86. That said, I have no idea how much of an NIL endowment he might leave to Oregon.ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:jy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
On the contrary, I think the former PAC-12 schools are going to become powers in their new conferences. A few years from now people will look back and say "Can you believe they all used to be in one conference?"
Washington will likely have a tough time without a full share unless they want to fund 20-30 million yearly deficits until 2030. Phil Knight basically said he'll put an unlimited amount of money into NIL, so Oregon won't be facing the same issue.
golden sloth said:CNHTH said:
I think Oregon more than any other school is going to struggle (probably not this year but down the line). People forget how many recruits they pulled from the Bay Area and Sacramento. They still might but certainly not to the same degree that they once did.
And it's not just an oregon problem it's a big 10 problem. Oregon, and most big 10 regions simply do not produce recruits. Yes, they still have LA but they traded the NorCal and Phoenix for Wisconsin and Nebraska. Whereas we essentially traded the PNW and Phoenix for Miami and Dallas.
And I know that everyone thinks Oregon's NIL will solve all but the truth of the matter is that a lot of these kids want a game in front of friends and family.
They are in a very precarious position from a recruiting position perspective imho as are most big 10 schools not in LA. They are banking on the notion that they'll have the money to buy any recruit they want and that any recruit they want values money over all else,
Too many hypotheticals for me to think it will work out better for them. And at this point i don't believe it will.
Most recruits think they can make it the NFL and want to play in a league and conference that will best prepare them for that goal. Right now, there is no arguing that the B1G and SEC have the best chance of doing that. It doesnt hurt that those two conferences will offer the most NIL and have the most TV visibility. Basically, players want to play in the big time games in the big time conferences, and the B1G and SEC offer that.
Oregon is much better positioned to succeed than UW or UCLA. Maybe even better than USC, given that USC's athletic leadership seems to be lacking.Rushinbear said:From a Cal perspective, it's notable how my interest in former P12 teams has decreased - other than recruiting, we have little in common.Gobears49 said:
A must read article on Oregon football coach Dan Lanning.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40781349/dan-lanning-journey-commitment-oregon-big-ten-2024
From a CFB perspective, it's a curiosity how they transition into a whole new world for them. But, I think it's transitory. Both the PNW teams and UCLA will have more to manage than they realize (maybe only until now) and they will be treated like outsiders in more ways than they imagine. USC has always felt to me only as a mercenary, so nothing has changed with them. Realignment may come again, only as they finally get settled.
The same may be said about us, but there seems to be less at stake, at least in our expectations.
Cohen got Petersen to move to Udub (she was the reason he came), quickly fired Lake when it wasn't working and hired DeBoer. She is insanely good fundraiser. I'm kinda missing the part of SC's athletic leadership is lacking. This where she is at Washington.BearSD said:Oregon is much better positioned to succeed than UW or UCLA. Maybe even better than USC, given that USC's athletic leadership seems to be lacking.Rushinbear said:From a Cal perspective, it's notable how my interest in former P12 teams has decreased - other than recruiting, we have little in common.Gobears49 said:
A must read article on Oregon football coach Dan Lanning.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40781349/dan-lanning-journey-commitment-oregon-big-ten-2024
From a CFB perspective, it's a curiosity how they transition into a whole new world for them. But, I think it's transitory. Both the PNW teams and UCLA will have more to manage than they realize (maybe only until now) and they will be treated like outsiders in more ways than they imagine. USC has always felt to me only as a mercenary, so nothing has changed with them. Realignment may come again, only as they finally get settled.
The same may be said about us, but there seems to be less at stake, at least in our expectations.
As for who has less at stake? Oregon has far less at stake than Cal does. Oregon is already in the club. Our Bears are on the outside looking in. If you really want to ask who has more at stake, try to make a list, in order, of which ACC or Big 12 schools would be on the Big Ten's wish list for further expansion. Then think of what our Bears have to do in the next few years to try and get higher up on that wish list.
wifeisafurd said:Cohen got Petersen to move to Udub (she was the reason he came), quickly fired Lake when it wasn't working and hired DeBoer. She is insanely good fundraiser. I'm kinda missing the part of SC's athletic leadership is lacking. This where she is at Washington.BearSD said:Oregon is much better positioned to succeed than UW or UCLA. Maybe even better than USC, given that USC's athletic leadership seems to be lacking.Rushinbear said:From a Cal perspective, it's notable how my interest in former P12 teams has decreased - other than recruiting, we have little in common.Gobears49 said:
A must read article on Oregon football coach Dan Lanning.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40781349/dan-lanning-journey-commitment-oregon-big-ten-2024
From a CFB perspective, it's a curiosity how they transition into a whole new world for them. But, I think it's transitory. Both the PNW teams and UCLA will have more to manage than they realize (maybe only until now) and they will be treated like outsiders in more ways than they imagine. USC has always felt to me only as a mercenary, so nothing has changed with them. Realignment may come again, only as they finally get settled.
The same may be said about us, but there seems to be less at stake, at least in our expectations.
As for who has less at stake? Oregon has far less at stake than Cal does. Oregon is already in the club. Our Bears are on the outside looking in. If you really want to ask who has more at stake, try to make a list, in order, of which ACC or Big 12 schools would be on the Big Ten's wish list for further expansion. Then think of what our Bears have to do in the next few years to try and get higher up on that wish list.
Athletic Department Power Index: Pac-12 Conference https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/athletic-department-power-index-pac-12/
I'm kinda wondering who in the former Pac 12 you think has a good AD and why? Who is better in the the B1G now that Gene Smith retired?
I'm wishing it on UCLAjy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
I'm wishing it on both of them.kal kommie said:I'm wishing it on UCLAjy1988 said:
Somehow I have the feeling that things won't work out as well for UO and UCLA in the BiG as they hoped. Not wishing it on them, just a gut feeling.
calumnus said:wifeisafurd said:Cohen got Petersen to move to Udub (she was the reason he came), quickly fired Lake when it wasn't working and hired DeBoer. She is insanely good fundraiser. I'm kinda missing the part of SC's athletic leadership is lacking. This where she is at Washington.BearSD said:Oregon is much better positioned to succeed than UW or UCLA. Maybe even better than USC, given that USC's athletic leadership seems to be lacking.Rushinbear said:From a Cal perspective, it's notable how my interest in former P12 teams has decreased - other than recruiting, we have little in common.Gobears49 said:
A must read article on Oregon football coach Dan Lanning.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40781349/dan-lanning-journey-commitment-oregon-big-ten-2024
From a CFB perspective, it's a curiosity how they transition into a whole new world for them. But, I think it's transitory. Both the PNW teams and UCLA will have more to manage than they realize (maybe only until now) and they will be treated like outsiders in more ways than they imagine. USC has always felt to me only as a mercenary, so nothing has changed with them. Realignment may come again, only as they finally get settled.
The same may be said about us, but there seems to be less at stake, at least in our expectations.
As for who has less at stake? Oregon has far less at stake than Cal does. Oregon is already in the club. Our Bears are on the outside looking in. If you really want to ask who has more at stake, try to make a list, in order, of which ACC or Big 12 schools would be on the Big Ten's wish list for further expansion. Then think of what our Bears have to do in the next few years to try and get higher up on that wish list.
Athletic Department Power Index: Pac-12 Conference https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/athletic-department-power-index-pac-12/
I'm kinda wondering who in the former Pac 12 you think has a good AD and why? Who is better in the the B1G now that Gene Smith retired?
Under Leadership SC was #11, just ahead of Cal at #12.
Let's try some reading comprehension. Leadership Washington, where Cohen was at the time of the AD poll, was number 2 in the Pac, and as an AD Cohen was rated no. 2 behind Muir.calumnus said:wifeisafurd said:Cohen got Petersen to move to Udub (she was the reason he came), quickly fired Lake when it wasn't working and hired DeBoer. She is insanely good fundraiser. I'm kinda missing the part of SC's athletic leadership is lacking. This where she is at Washington.BearSD said:Oregon is much better positioned to succeed than UW or UCLA. Maybe even better than USC, given that USC's athletic leadership seems to be lacking.Rushinbear said:From a Cal perspective, it's notable how my interest in former P12 teams has decreased - other than recruiting, we have little in common.Gobears49 said:
A must read article on Oregon football coach Dan Lanning.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40781349/dan-lanning-journey-commitment-oregon-big-ten-2024
From a CFB perspective, it's a curiosity how they transition into a whole new world for them. But, I think it's transitory. Both the PNW teams and UCLA will have more to manage than they realize (maybe only until now) and they will be treated like outsiders in more ways than they imagine. USC has always felt to me only as a mercenary, so nothing has changed with them. Realignment may come again, only as they finally get settled.
The same may be said about us, but there seems to be less at stake, at least in our expectations.
As for who has less at stake? Oregon has far less at stake than Cal does. Oregon is already in the club. Our Bears are on the outside looking in. If you really want to ask who has more at stake, try to make a list, in order, of which ACC or Big 12 schools would be on the Big Ten's wish list for further expansion. Then think of what our Bears have to do in the next few years to try and get higher up on that wish list.
Athletic Department Power Index: Pac-12 Conference https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/athletic-department-power-index-pac-12/
I'm kinda wondering who in the former Pac 12 you think has a good AD and why? Who is better in the the B1G now that Gene Smith retired?
Under Leadership SC was #11, just ahead of Cal at #12.
Listening to a bunch of guys on Cal sports talking about athletics directors is just surreal.BearSD said:calumnus said:wifeisafurd said:Cohen got Petersen to move to Udub (she was the reason he came), quickly fired Lake when it wasn't working and hired DeBoer. She is insanely good fundraiser. I'm kinda missing the part of SC's athletic leadership is lacking. This where she is at Washington.BearSD said:Oregon is much better positioned to succeed than UW or UCLA. Maybe even better than USC, given that USC's athletic leadership seems to be lacking.Rushinbear said:From a Cal perspective, it's notable how my interest in former P12 teams has decreased - other than recruiting, we have little in common.Gobears49 said:
A must read article on Oregon football coach Dan Lanning.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40781349/dan-lanning-journey-commitment-oregon-big-ten-2024
From a CFB perspective, it's a curiosity how they transition into a whole new world for them. But, I think it's transitory. Both the PNW teams and UCLA will have more to manage than they realize (maybe only until now) and they will be treated like outsiders in more ways than they imagine. USC has always felt to me only as a mercenary, so nothing has changed with them. Realignment may come again, only as they finally get settled.
The same may be said about us, but there seems to be less at stake, at least in our expectations.
As for who has less at stake? Oregon has far less at stake than Cal does. Oregon is already in the club. Our Bears are on the outside looking in. If you really want to ask who has more at stake, try to make a list, in order, of which ACC or Big 12 schools would be on the Big Ten's wish list for further expansion. Then think of what our Bears have to do in the next few years to try and get higher up on that wish list.
Athletic Department Power Index: Pac-12 Conference https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/athletic-department-power-index-pac-12/
I'm kinda wondering who in the former Pac 12 you think has a good AD and why? Who is better in the the B1G now that Gene Smith retired?
Under Leadership SC was #11, just ahead of Cal at #12.
Yeah, the last AD at USC (Bohn) was mediocre at best. Mullens at Oregon was much better. As for Cohen, fundraising may be great, which isn't hard at USC. I am not impressed with the coaching hires. (IIRC Gottlieb was hired before Cohen was AD.)
Dillon Gabriel is far more proven than Joe Ayoob or redshirt freshman Nate Longshore. He had the sixth best passer rating in college football last year, ahead of Caleb Williams.LawoftheBear said:
They lost Bo Nix. Nevertheless, they recruited a five star and several four stars. And even though they lost Bo Nix, they think they will be better this year. This reminds me of Cal in 2005. We lost Aaron Rodgers. In recruiting we had one of our best years ever getting several five star athletes and many four star athletes. This included a five star quarterback known as the white Michael Vick! In retrospect, many of those recruits were awesome for us! But we definitely were worse off after losing our superstar quarterback.
2005 Cal < 2004 Cal
2024 Oregon < 2023 Oregon
