I tend to agree with David Shaw in that in 10-20 years, much of the current turmoil will self correct, though it won't be to go back to the way it was. But his hope of their relationship with USC and UCLA not changing, that they continue to play each other even if they're out-of-conference games, an idea I've heard from others as well, is basically impossible. Given the need to play 9 conference games (in the B1G [and SEC] in order to ever get around the rest of the conference, and also still play ND (unless they join the B1G, and why would they when they can make more money and playoff appearances by not doing so?), and still play their traditional regional rivals, would eat up the full schedule (unless we are going to expand to 14 games, which won't fly with an expanded playoff that creates a 14/16 game schedule for some by itself), and there will still be pressure to play other attractive games, regional or interconference.
Even suggesting some of the ideas floated only gives false credence to them. Realistically, splitting football off from the other sports organizationally seems the most feasible route forward. Football needs to make the money to pay for everything else, but nothing else can or should be run the way footballl is, or has been, or will be.
Dan Lanning is making stuff up and unaware of West Coast football history. "Oregon has been always a premier team in college football" That guy is already taking shrooms in Eugene since he doesn't recall that Oregon was a basement dwelling nobody for many decades prior to Uncle Phil and all. Pump it all he wants, Oregon is a recent phenomenon, put on steroids by Chip Kelly.
Within his memory, he is correct. And history more than ~20 years back (if even that far), is of very little relevance in the current world, despite some people's desire to hold on to that history. I do agree that there is a danger especially to college football in losing touch with tradition for their customer base, but what Oregon (or anyone else) was or wasn't in the last century isn't going to override what they have been recently.
I'm just having fun. Those of us with more years and longer memories can tell stories about every team in the West being better or worse than they are now. I still vividly recall when Erickson was the coach of the Beavers and they were dominant. WSU in the Rose Bowl. So forth. I'm a science person so myopia is my enemy and I generally prefer keeping the looong view in mind.
The long view does matter, I agree, and I fear the $ short view (things like Wilner rejecting adding a successful program in a wildly growing market like Boise to the Pac-xx because they won't add $s in the next couple of years; that will only come later after they continue to grow) is just going to postpone some serious problems.
I do agree a lot of the universities need lots of $s in the short term, in order to both survive (not compete) in the presence of others who do have $s, and to address years of mismanagement, or there may not be a long term to have to worry about. But if we are to learn anything from history, its that holding onto an unsustainable historic model (like the NCAA as a body did) is going to force paniced change instead of managed change.
(And I have been around long enough to remember when Oregon opened up a fancy new Autzen Stadium so that Washington would actually play them in Eugene instead of insisting on playing in Portland), and Arizona St. becoming so consistently good in the WAC that the Pac couldn't put off absorbing the Phoenix market any longer.)
I remember in 60's Cal vs. Oregon in Multnomah Stadium in Portland....where listening on the radio, the QB (Penhall?) hurt himself tripping over the track curb that circled the field. Also games vs. WSU in Spokane.
Boise, and the Boise valley, are not a real big market, but it is growing, and rapidly. Real parallels with Phoenix when they were starting to out-grow the WAC and moved to the Pac before it was anywhere near the size it is now, and Salt Lake City and the valley, which has and still is growing. The risk with waiting on Boise is it could be gone to the Big XII before it grows to the point where it is a large enough market to be an obvious addition, like ASU & Utah. Do you want to embrace a growth market? Cal, for example, is a larger market, but it is past any opportunity for significant growth anywhere near Berkeley. San Jose St is a better growth market!
I tend to agree with David Shaw in that in 10-20 years, much of the current turmoil will self correct, though it won't be to go back to the way it was. But his hope of their relationship with USC and UCLA not changing, that they continue to play each other even if they're out-of-conference games, an idea I've heard from others as well, is basically impossible. Given the need to play 9 conference games (in the B1G [and SEC] in order to ever get around the rest of the conference, and also still play ND (unless they join the B1G, and why would they when they can make more money and playoff appearances by not doing so?), and still play their traditional regional rivals, would eat up the full schedule (unless we are going to expand to 14 games, which won't fly with an expanded playoff that creates a 14/16 game schedule for some by itself), and there will still be pressure to play other attractive games, regional or interconference.
Even suggesting some of the ideas floated only gives false credence to them. Realistically, splitting football off from the other sports organizationally seems the most feasible route forward. Football needs to make the money to pay for everything else, but nothing else can or should be run the way footballl is, or has been, or will be.
Dan Lanning is making stuff up and unaware of West Coast football history. "Oregon has been always a premier team in college football" That guy is already taking shrooms in Eugene since he doesn't recall that Oregon was a basement dwelling nobody for many decades prior to Uncle Phil and all. Pump it all he wants, Oregon is a recent phenomenon, put on steroids by Chip Kelly.
Maybe he means their cheerleading crew?
Within his memory, he is correct. And history more than ~20 years back (if even that far), is of very little relevance in the current world, despite some people's desire to hold on to that history. I do agree that there is a danger especially to college football in losing touch with tradition for their customer base, but what Oregon (or anyone else) was or wasn't in the last century isn't going to override what they have been recently.
I'm just having fun. Those of us with more years and longer memories can tell stories about every team in the West being better or worse than they are now. I still vividly recall when Erickson was the coach of the Beavers and they were dominant. WSU in the Rose Bowl. So forth. I'm a science person so myopia is my enemy and I generally prefer keeping the looong view in mind.
The long view does matter, I agree, and I fear the $ short view (things like Wilner rejecting adding a successful program in a wildly growing market like Boise to the Pac-xx because they won't add $s in the next couple of years; that will only come later after they continue to grow) is just going to postpone some serious problems.
I do agree a lot of the universities need lots of $s in the short term, in order to both survive (not compete) in the presence of others who do have $s, and to address years of mismanagement, or there may not be a long term to have to worry about. But if we are to learn anything from history, its that holding onto an unsustainable historic model (like the NCAA as a body did) is going to force paniced change instead of managed change.
(And I have been around long enough to remember when Oregon opened up a fancy new Autzen Stadium so that Washington would actually play them in Eugene instead of insisting on playing in Portland), and Arizona St. becoming so consistently good in the WAC that the Pac couldn't put off absorbing the Phoenix market any longer.)
I remember in 60's Cal vs. Oregon in Multnomah Stadium in Portland....where listening on the radio, the QB (Penhall?) hurt himself tripping over the track curb that circled the field. Also games vs. WSU in Spokane.
Look at us having an interesting and thoughtful conversation on a sports site. Because: Cal!
I too recall when Oregon sucked more than Cal and we could always circle that game as a win.
Boise, and the Boise valley, are not a real big market, but it is growing, and rapidly. Real parallels with Phoenix when they were starting to out-grow the WAC and moved to the Pac before it was anywhere near the size it is now, and Salt Lake City and the valley, which has and still is growing. The risk with waiting on Boise is it could be gone to the Big XII before it grows to the point where it is a large enough market to be an obvious addition, like ASU & Utah. Do you want to embrace a growth market? Cal, for example, is a larger market, but it is past any opportunity for significant growth anywhere near Berkeley. San Jose St is a better growth market!