Kurt Rambis

While I really like what Bucky and the other backs have done so far, any scuttlebutt on what's happening with Cardwell? Is the injury still lingering, is he in the doghouse, or do the coaches just think the other backs are better? I really thought after the taste we got last year that Cardwell would be the Next Big Thing at Oregon.

There would be a bit of poetic justice to that for the fans, but Lanning has no reason to target Miami and his staff probably has little or no pre-existing relationship with those recruits. I would think any program that is struggling right now, looking bad, and/or in limbo - Miami, Nebraska, ASU, Iowa, and others - is a prime target for flipping recruits.

I don't disagree with the concept that if CA schools are in the national spotlight, that'll make recruiting against them harder. That's true for any school. I'm just not sure that's going to happen long-term. UCLA was ranked #9, but why? They certainly didn't play a particularly tough schedule - UW, Utah, and four total cupcakes. Chip has always hated recruiting. Especially once they move to the B1G, I'm not convinced they'll be much over .500 on a regular basis. USC has looked good this year but also has played only 3 decent teams - a close loss to OSU, beating a fading WSU team, and losing to Utah. Also not convinced they'll do that well after the move, particularly since they actually play D in the B1G, and Riley's defenses have traditionally been weak. Cal has been mediocre for years. Stanford had some great years, but they've been down for a while, and with their academic standards for recruits, they're not even in play for the majority of recruits. Staying in SoCal will always be appealing for some players, but I'm not convinced we'll face overwhelming competition from the CA schools long-term, any more than we have for the past 10 - 20 years.

I sorta think the best college football humor is Miami's performance this season. Just sayin'.

Interesting that the higher-ranked team has only won 9 of those 17 matchups (53%), and the home team has only won 10 of the 17 (59%).

There's one pretty big difference: did Oregon's AD help block Pac-12 expansion? On the "leaving" part, I agree with you. I even get it about lying to the commish, because it's not like you can make secret backroom deals in the light of day. But what SC did is akin to burning down someone else's business and then claiming their insurance money. My head says it's better for the Ducks if SC wins, but that's only if SC and Oregon both make the championship game. Too many ifs and unknowns...not to mention I still think the Ducks are good enough to win the Pac-12 and then lose by 30 to an SEC team. We're just not there yet, IMHO. Therefore, go Utah!

I could see Bama getting left out of things, but not if they win the SEC title game.

On one hand, If A is clearly off-limits and B is questionable and you make B off-limits, then C becomes questionable; if you make C off-limits, then D is questionable. There will always be someone who can take offense - particularly if there's a player's family member on the board. Even a statement like "I'm not sure what Player A was thinking on that play; a smarter thing to do would have been to run out of bounds" can become "You're calling my baby stupid?! What do you know about playing football?" On the other hand, there's a reason we all keep coming back to this forum. There's no question a line has to be drawn; the question of WHERE will always be a moving target. For instance, I don't read the snarky "comedy" articles about each week's opponent because I don't appreciate them. I'm sure others love them. IMHO, it all comes down to intent. "Turnover Thompson" isn't making a statement or having a discussion about a player; it's just an insult. It's like the difference between saying, "Charles, I disagree with you about where the line should be drawn" and "Charles, stop being a big baby." Both might intend to say the same thing, but one choice is rude and unnecessary and I would flag it. The second example is largely the same, to me. Saying you think Butterfield should be elevated to #2, that TT doesn't look like a Power 5 QB, etc. are all perfectly reasonable opinions (right or wrong). Same as saying an OG looked slow or out of shape, a freshman looks lost out there, someone committed a boneheaded penalty, the play calling in the 4th quarter cost us the game, etc. But saying something like "That fat dude needs to back off the buffet table" or "Dilly's stupidity cost us the game in Q4" turns an opinion into an insult. Unnecessary. I had zero problem with #3. I didn't interpret it as commenting on intelligence, but on game awareness. I've seen plenty of smart people freeze up in front of an audience or on a test, for instance - doesn't mean they're dumb. Had it been something like "He's not bright enough..." then that's a different story. I've seen plenty of athletes with amazing athletic ability who simply can't figure out how to use it - the difference between Harold Minor and Vince Carter. As for how to deal with it, I would suggest a nice, brief, non-confrontational e-mail explaining what was wrong with the post, an alternate way to express the sentiment, and noting that these rules are implemented by popular opinion. This thread gave people an opportunity to express themselves, and it's pretty clear you're not the only one with concerns about at least some of these statements. Put the responsibility on the entire board - not just the owner who wants things a certain way. At this point, it's clear that's where it rests, and maybe that approach will save you some grief and arguments. It's how WE want things as a community - not just how YOU want things.

College recruiting is much like the NFL draft - so much of it is projections of what a guy might develop into at the next level. You will ALWAYS have a better team if it's loaded with 5-star recruits (or 1st round draft choices) than lower-level guys - the numbers bear that out over and over again. But then we make the mistake of projecting that to individual players ("This guy was a 1st rounder/5-star, so he should be great!"). And too often, we have expectations of greatness right away. Plenty of guys wash out at the next level; others take a long time to develop. For every Bryce Young or CJ Stroud there's a Brock Purdy. Top 10 QBs from 2017 - 2019 (from 247 Sports) include Hunter Johnson, Myles Brennan, Jack Sears, Dylan McCaffrey, Keytaon Thompson, Justin Rogers, Jarren Williams, JT Daniels, Tyler Shough, Max Duggan, Spencer Rattler, Graham Mertz, Ryan Hilinski, and Dylan Morris - that's 14 guys out of the top 30 who have done next to nothing in college. 247 has Thompson rated #9 among '21 QBs. The rest of the top 10 class: Quinn Ewers (tOSU), Caleb Williams (Oklahoma), Sam Huard (UW), Drake Maye (UNC), Brock Vandegriff (UGA), JJ McCarthy (Michigan), Kaidon Salter (Tenn), Kyle McCord (tOSU), and Tyler Buchner (Notre Dame). Ewers couldn't get on the field and transferred, but is doing well at Texas. Williams is a star. Maye and McCarthy are first year starters doing well. McCord looks good as a backup. But Huard has 24 yards passing this season. Salter is a mediocre starter, but at Liberty. Vandagriff is 0 - 3 passing in his career. Buchner has struggled (3 TDs 5 picks) in spot duty and is out for 4 months with a shoulder injury. And we've all seen Thompson. So far, out of the top 10, it looks like 1 star, 3 more who are looking really good so far, and a bunch of nothing for the other six. Maybe some of these guys will become starters and even stars as they mature and get more opportunities, but it's not like Thompson is that different from the majority of the top ten from 2021. That's why it's hard to get too excited about Donte Moore - will he be the next Spencer Rattler, or the next CJ Stroud? I'd rather have him than not have him, that's for sure, but he, Butterfield, Thompson, Cade Millen, Robbie Ashford, Tyler Shough, and all these other guys who have come through Autzen who haven't left a mark tell us that it's a real crapshoot.

I look at it this way: would I rather listen to an interview with Leach or with a non-personality like Nick Saban? Leach all day long. Yeah, he takes it a bit far sometimes, but I love when athletes and coaches let their personality out rather than engaging in cliches and corporate speak. Plus you have to respect what he consistently managed to accomplish at WSU. People think it's hard to recruit to Eugene? Try eastern Washington. Plus he's a fellow Pepperdine alumnus, so there's that. 😁

Just turned 57 and I like 'em. And they do have "nightmare green" elements in the numbers and helmets, so at least we can pretend school colors are involved! I love the fact we go totally non-traditional sometimes.

Agree completely. I was reacting to the way things are right now, not the way they will become with 12 teams in the playoffs. However, I still would rather be top-heavy, as the #3 and #4 teams will definitely make the playoffs, and #10 would have a strong case, whereas teams in the 15 - 25 range have no shot unless they're conference champions.

Sure, it's 5 - 3, but look at where those teams are rated: #3, #4, #10 for the B1G, compared to #6 (and I believe seriously overrated at that), #12, #13, #18, #21. In other words, two teams that right now might make the CFB playoffs, versus none. I'd go for quality over quantity any day. Especially early in the season, 15 - 25 are usually a bunch of teams that no one really know what to do with - good record but played no one (UCLA), no tradition but suddenly a solid record (Kansas), highly ranked last year but struggling (Cincinnati), etc. Does anyone really know whether Kansas State is better than Washington State? But everyone can see Ohio State is obviously better than Washington State. Both conferences have plenty of traditionally weak teams - Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern, Cal, ASU, Oregon State. Pac 12 has more decent teams than the B1G; B1G has more serious playoff contenders than the Pac 12.

It's the known versus the unknown. By the end of the year, we'll know exactly what we have in Nix. Unless TT or Butterfield gets to play, they'll remain total unknowns. So if Nix implodes, then we'll probably be ready to move on as fans. If he continues to play like he did against WSU, we'll want him back. Unfortunately, if he implodes, he's probably back; if he plays great, he may be gone.

First Ducks game I've seen in nearly three years and it's this? Ugh. Well, at least I don't think we need to worry about losing our OC to ASU...

Then I guess Appalachian State must be ranked #1. "Supposed to be" and "is" can be miles and miles apart.

Oh, HELL YES!!! Living overseas, there's basically no way to watch the NFL without streaming. I share a subscription to NFL Game Pass with my niece and her husband - can watch any NFL game live, or see the whole thing after the fact without commercials, or even watch a 40-minute telescoped version of the game. Plus I can watch previous Super Bowls, classic games, NFL shows, or anything else they have on there, commercial free. Would freaking LOVE to do the same thing with the Ducks, with Pepperdine basketball, etc. As for the "I'm too old to do this" issue, I simply refuse to let that stop me. If I can't understand something the first time, I'll study it or ask someone who knows what they're doing. We have cable for my elderly MIL who lives with us, but I haven't watched it in two years - everything is Netflix or Disney+. No ads, can watch it whenever I want (not whenever the network programs it), can pause it, rewind to catch something I missed, etc. It's just a much better way to watch TV. Now Prime specifically is a bit of a hassle, because we can't get most of the programming in Europe - but that's why smart people invented VPN and Apple Air Play!

I love great, heated rivalries in any sport. Steelers/Ravens. RedskinsCommanders/Cowboys. The old Celtics/Lakers and Celtics/Pistons. That's one of the great things about college sports - rivalries tend to stay around forever. Michigan/Ohio State and Alabama/Auburn have hated each other forever. On the other hand, the biggest rivalry in the NFL used to be Steelers/Raiders, and now the two teams couldn't care less about each other. Even the small schools have great rivalries. When I was at Pepperdine, it was Pepperdine/Loyola Marymount in hoops. Man, that got ugly - some of the crowd shenanigans I led during a particularly heated game made the front page of the LA Times sports section. (Nothing destructive or soccer-hooligan-like, just loud and obnoxious.) There's nothing like beating your big rival.

No, not in general, but which would you rather have happen to the Ducks: Get embarrassingly rolled 49 - 3 by one of the best teams in the nation Lose a close game to a lower-level program like Appalachian State or Georgia Southern (or Eastern Washington)? In other words, just given these factors, would you rather be Dan Lanning or Jimbo Fisher/Scott Frost?

If it were just "better players," there would be no upsets in college football. Appalachian State would never have beaten Michigan; Boise State would never have beaten Oklahoma. It's a lot more than just that, although I have no doubt that plays a major role. Oregon had much better players than Stanford last year, but look what happened. Is it scheme? Coaching? Lack of effort/heart? Lack of football IQ? Transitioning to a new system? Lack of leadership? Maturity? No idea. Maybe even the guys who coach and play on the team don't know right now. And if they do, I'm sure no coach or player is going to come out and say, "Yeah, that defensive scheme sucked" or "Yeah, that position group is seriously overrated." So we fans will stay in the dark until we get to see some more games and get a sense of what's happening on a regular basis. And I'm not buying the time zone or home field elements. Home field is generally worth about 3 points in the spread. I used to travel 25 weeks a year all over the US and often dealt with 3 times zones a week, working until midnight, traveling commercial, well into my late 40s without being a highly conditioned athlete with every training, equipment, and nutritional advantage known to man - sucks sometimes, but deal with it. No different than playing with a sore ankle or a head cold - sucks, but deal with it. Those can't possibly begin to explain a 46-point gap.

I drive a 70 horsepower car on a daily basis - what's your point? 😁 With gas at about $8 a gallon, narrow roads (some built 2,000 years ago), and mostly tiny parking spaces available, it makes sense. But driving a vehicle powered by an asthmatic squirrel with a limp does get old sometimes...I miss my Lexus...

If UGA, Bama, and tOSU are so far ahead of everyone else, what difference does it make whether a team like Michigan or Oregon or Oklahoma gets rolled in the first game of the season, or in the first game of the playoffs?

Dang, nothing in northern Portugal...

Given the analysis, I'm surprised the predicted score wasn't 223 - 0 (beating the all-time college blowout record by one point). A ton of "he's not bad" and "he's a decent player," largely followed by "but he can't handle the UGA guy across from him." Apparently every UGA player is #1 in the country at his position, while every UO player is "okay for the Pac-12." And maybe this guy is right. Ducks largely looked awful at the end of last season while the Bulldogs were winning the national title. I'm certainly not going to spout off about how great the Ducks are, or make predictions that they'll beat Georgia or keep it close, because honestly I have no idea. But as has happened in the last couple of decades against Michigan, Ohio State, Tennessee, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, and a few others - let's see what happens when the whistle blows.

LOVE the apple green! Not to mention the fact that they're actually wearing school colors, rather than taupe and chartreuse or some other wacked combo.