Kurt Rambis

I didn't have to see this video to know why he left. I don't blame him at all for leaving. What WR - NFL aspirations or not, realistic or not - wants to play for a team where the leading receiver often would have something like 48 yards? However, leaving mid-season was weak. If you don't want to commit to the team, don't - but don't decide that halfway through the season. Finish what you start, or don't start it. Another reason I have no problem with Lanning coaching UGA through the CFP.

He's a little bit like Mike Leach and the dude at Oklahoma State, Mike Gundy- strong coach but sometimes verbally his own worst enemy. I actually like when coaches aren't all buttoned up like Saban and actually show a personality. If Kiffin weren't quite so mercenary, I might have been more excited about him as the Dux coach.

If Oregon takes care of business, it won't matter a lot how the conference is rated. Is Cincinnati from a great conference? No, but they are in the CFP because they took care of business. Is the WCC a great conference? It's no ACC, but Gonzaga is a national power, so the league doesn't much matter. Had we not lost inexcusably to Stanford, and not gotten blown out by Utah, Oregon would be in the CFP - conference or no conference.

Frankly, if he's a coach who can take us the next step, I'll take a year with NO RECRUITS AT ALL. With a really young roster, the transfer portal, some guys who are uncommitted/undecided, maybe a smaller class, some guys who'll look at Oregon who weren't going to before, some guys who may follow Lanning out west, and maybe a few 3* recruits who have potential...we'll be just fine.

I also respect the fact that Lanning wants to finish what he started and honor his commitment to UGA. That was one of the things I hated about hearing some people wish for Urban Meyer - it would mean he'd have to pull a Petrino and jet out of J'ville midway through his first season there. It would be hard to respect someone who would do that.

B But given the situation, I think that's probably all we could expect. The hire had to be done quickly or the whole recruiting class could be lost, along with current players. The job opened after a lot of the coaching movement was already done or guys like James Franklin had gotten locked up with new contracts. And yes, he's really young, a defensive specialist, could bolt back down south again in a few years, and has no HC experience. All gambles. Of course, consider some of the other options that were discussed... Urban Meyer - huge previous success, but huge baggage and health problems Wilcox - would probably be a lifer if he had success, but not exactly a tremendous track record at Cal Lane Kiffen - great recruiter and coaching mind but a known mercenary who was highly unlikely to stay long Chip Kelly - great history at Oregon, but hates recruiting and has a mediocre-to-poor record post-Oregon Aranda - looks real promising but only a couple of years experience as a HC, so still a bit of an unknown factor We could keep going. Basically unless we hired Saban there would be questions (and even with Saban, with his age how long will he keep coaching?). So yes, it's a gamble, but everyone we could have hired would have been a gamble. It's just a matter of what's the potential upside you get from the gamble, and what factors are you willing to gamble on?

Lots of guys are looking to be a head coach, not a coordinator. The chance to run your own program - and not have to go to Akron to do it - is a HUGE appeal. Far more than being an assistant, even on a top team. Of course, therein also lies the challenge: lots of coordinators become head coaches and prove that, as head coaches, they are great coordinators.

Didn't Oklahoma - which has been in more playoff discussions than Oregon over the last decade - just hire Venables as the head coach? Not saying that will turn out to be a good decision, but they're a program at this level and they just hired a first-timer...

WHAT? Did Bridgeport die?

I'm not aware of anyone in any country that actually serves warm beer (unless they literally lack cool places and refrigeration). In places like England, they often cellar their beers, serving them at the cellar temperature, which is commonly around 40 - 55 degrees. Good beer should not be served ice cold, as it suppresses the taste. A good IPA should be around 42 - 48 degrees; a good porter or stout probably 50 - 55 degrees. But it is much less cold than we're used to in the States, which is why people commonly say beer is served warm. It's really not - just seems that way in comparison. But to answer your question directly - they serve it cold. At a good tasting room, they serve it at the proper temperature for the style of beer. The lighter and weaker the beer, the colder it should be served. Which is why Bud and Miller should be served somewhere around absolute zero. 🙂

Unfortunately I wouldn't know - haven't been back to Wild River in a few years. Used to love their pizza, too.

I miss Oregon beers (actually, I miss many American brewers like Avery, Stone, and Wasatch), but fortunately I found a brewery here in Portugal that is the equal of anything I've ever tried in the States. It's Dois Corvos (Two Crows), started by an American brewmaster, and I am constantly amazed at the variety of styles they have and how good most of them are. I'm used to each brewery having 1 - 3 real winners and then a bunch of fairly decent brews, but this place has at least six I've tried that are absolutely world class, including a Mexican chocolate stout, a fantastic porter, and a cream stout brewed with custard tarts (pasteis de nata in local parlance). Sadly, they're four hours away in Lisbon, but they have free shipping throughout the country even on fairly small orders - just got a mixed case this week!

Yes! Great to see props here for Wild River (although personally I'd go with their Cave Bear Barley Wine and/or the Russian Imperial Stout). Love the place in Grants Pass!

I look at this the same way as a job. If you work at Ford and you really like the company but your boss is a complete jerk, are you going to stay there? No matter how loyal you are to the company, you're probably leaving because you can't stand the person you work for directly. Same thing with a HC and a position coach. You're a run-blocking guard - are you going to stick with your commitment if the next guy wants to throw 60 times a game? You're a traditional nose tackle - are you staying around if the next guy switches from a 3-4 to a 4-3? And not just play style, but also coaching style and management style. These factors are all entirely unknown to all the commits and current players. The current players are at least already invested in the program and the school - for a commit, there's nothing keeping them here, at Oklahoma, LSU, etc. When they're choosing a school, I'm sure a lot of things factor in - culture, academics (for some), facilities, coaches, location, conference, etc. If any one of those things changes, it can change the whole picture. I absolutely don't blame any commits for taking a second look, as they have no clue who they might be playing for for the next 3 - 5 years.

To be fair, USC had three things Oregon doesn't. 1. a premier recruiting area in SoCal. 2. a blue-blood name (may not be important to 18-year-old kids, but still carries weight with 40-70-year-old coaches). Third, and most important in this case, is that they had a huge lead time to discuss, strategize about, contact, vet, and hire a coach, because they dumped Helton relatively early in the season. We're probably trying to hire a coach in a few days in order to try to salvage as much of this class as we can, and even if that's not top-of-mind for the administration, a bunch of big names (Venables, Riley, Kelly, etc.) are already locked down. It's like coming late to the dance and finding all the pretty girls are already paired off with someone.

Isn't virtually every school a stepping stone to somewhere else? Kelly left ND for LSU. Urban Meyer left Florida and ended up at tOSU. Riley left Oklahoma for USC. Bielema left Wisconsin for Arkansas. Carroll, Chip, Saban, Jimmy Johnson, Rhule, Harbaugh, O'Brien, many others left major winning programs for the NFL. The days of Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, and Bo Schembechler are largely over.

Okay, just read the actual article after posting - the author has the same top 4. At least I didn't forget anyone important...

After Helfrich face-planted as HC and then the Taggart fiasco, I'll remember him as a great recruiter who brought stability back to the program. In no way would I equate him with Taggart. But the Mt. Rushmore of Oregon coaches is still Casanova, Brooks, Bellotti, and Kelly - Cristobal isn't even close to that level.

Yeah, been trying to finish massive remodeling on a house and then moving in. Still surrounded by boxes and dust, with a bunch of stuff not working properly (new washing machine, range hood, window shades, etc.). It's been a little busy 'round here...

First, Haywarduck, my post wasn't specific to your comments - there have been various comments I've found unfortunate. Nothing too bad (this isn't a normal board), but in some ways equating our last two coaches, etc. I just don't happen to agree with them. Second, honestly, I didn't get that yours was meant to be humorous. Just misinterpreted it, I guess. The line "We don't need another salesman selling us something that sounds amazing, but is really only lining his pocket" I interpreted as a shot at MC as a slick salesman. Maybe he oversold his coaching abilities, but every successful coach and athlete has supreme confidence in his/her abilities, and I wouldn't exactly expect the job interview to be along the lines of, "I'll get you the best recruits in the conference and still manage to lose multiple games to teams with inferior players." Nothing you said was offensive nor even remotely close to crossing any line (none of the other posts have crossed any lines, either). Even if one does, I don't get offended easily. I just know (as someone else put it somewhere else on the board) when some recruit flips, there's inevitably a chorus of "Yeah, he wouldn't have cracked the starting lineup anyway" from a few folks. If people want to say that about MC's coaching, those are (IMHO) legit comments. I was one of the ones expressing concern about underperforming, close games against bad teams, etc. I just don't think it's fair to infer anything similar about his character because of the decision he made.

Pretty good article until they brought up Jeff Tedford...

Sorry, I want to win, but not at all costs. I'm not an alumnus, but a fan since the mid-70s, and I'd prefer to be proud of the team I'm cheering for.

Not a big fan of some of the comments I've seen on various threads directed at MC about departing. Criticizing his coaching is legit, but the dude pulled an entirely classy move doing the Canzano interview when he absolutely didn't need to. I can't blame someone for wanting to coach in his home state at his alma mater. Also can't blame him for promoting his abilities - how many of us go into a job interview and say, "Yeah, I'm not real good at these important things"? MC and Slick Willie both left Oregon for Florida, but the entire situation with the two of them is thousands of miles apart. Now, what Miami did to Diaz, and not even giving our AD a courtesy call? THAT is entirely classless. I'm going to be torn from here on out - would like to see MC succeed in his next job because I truly believe he is a good guy, but would like to see "the U" go 0 - 12 for a few years after what they pulled.

Yeah, I hate to say it, but I'm not on board with any nascent "hire Chip" movement. The "lightning in a bottle" comment in the article is spot on - he took the Dux to an amazing place when he was here, but time has marched on and I certainly haven't seen anything revolutionary (or even particularly different) at UCLA. At the same time, I'm not on board with Urban Meyer. First, problems follow this guy wherever he goes. Say what you want about previous head coaches, but RARELY were there serious off-field or in-classroom problems, nor recruiting problems, in previous regimes (yeah, like everyone we had occasional issues, but those are unavoidable with 150-or-so players and coaches). Second, he's older, has a history of health problems, and is probably a 5 year coach. I just don't see it. I also tend to think Brady is another case of the "lightning in a bottle" situation with an unreal class with Burrow & Company at LSU - before or after '19, was he ever special in any way? Not sure what to think about Sitake, Aranda, or any of the other candidates who've been thrown around in the media. Just hoping they get the right fit.

Well, but wouldn't that mean no coach could ever leave his job? Even to retire? There will always be a new class of recruits placing their success and development in your hands, and keeping you in place for the next 4 - 5 years. And position coaches would be in the same place - as an O-lineman, you probably rely more on your O-line coach than on the head coach - so if the O-line coach or the offensive coordinator get a HC offer, don't they have to stay for the kids they recruited? And what about the coach on the hot seat who recruits a great class, only to see them enter the transfer portal or flip at the last second? Ugly as it may be, it's a business. Coaches, players, and the administration all have the right to move on. Throughout my career, I've had bosses and clients who really depended on me - but at various times, I've taken better positions (at least, better for me), even if it hurt my previous employer and/or clients.