GeotechDuck

I don't understand this. While it benefits the Ducks, having multiple auto bids from a single conference is going to end up letting in some 8-5 team in a down conference year that has no business being in the field. As the posted above noted, this will most likely happen in the ACC or Big-12, but could happen less frequently in the BIG or SEC as well. In 2012, are you letting in 8-5 Michigan as the third place team? How about letting in 9-4 Wisconsin in 2013? I know there are more teams now and an unbalanced schedule, but that doesn't mean there won't be a 4- or 5-loss team in a down year. Why not just stick with the at-large bids, so the best teams are invited? Notre Dame gets a vote in all of this even though they are not in a conference? I think they should implement a requirement that you should have to be in a conference OR have won a major Bowl Game since 1994 to have a vote. That would knock immediately them out of the discussion.

Is USC even a factor anymore? They have not won a conference championship game since 2016 and have only one conference championship in the past 13 years. I keep hearing about how great Riley is, but is he really great? He is 0-3 in playoff games; 0-3 in post season games with a starting Heisman winning QB; and 1-4 in NY6 games. That's sounds a lot more like Mario 2.0 than greatness to me.

Pretty difficult to win games when you get killed on the glass and don't take care of the basketball. Colorado essentially had 8 more possessions than the Ducks tonight. Shelstad finally had to face a long, athletic defender tonight and he struggled. Dante looks very rusty. Need that win in Utah now.

At this point, I have NO DOUBT that if Oregon would have won the CCG against Washington by 3 points, both Washington and Oregon would have been left out in favor of Georgia or Florida State. I hate to see the Pac-12 go, but this is exactly why it needed to happen. The only chance to get in the playoff from the PAC or ACC conference is to win every game. And even that is not a guarantee anymore? It never should have been 4 teams in the first place. Winning your conference should matter, so it should have been 6 or 8 from the start.

I think Ty has played great this season. As for the pick he threw vs. ASU, his arm was hit on that play. I think he can be a high level starter at Oregon.

Absolutely. The BIG needs to throw them a lifeline. Even if it is a 1/4 share to start, I think it benefits everyone.

This is a great post. In life, you can't have the reward without assuming the risk. These "kids" begged to be treated like adults with jobs, income, responsibility and pressure to perform. Hey college athletes, welcome to the real world! I have no issue with what is going on in Colorado or Oregon right now. Under the new structure, these "kids" are essentially paid professional athletes. If they are not performing, cut them immediately and move on. This is nothing more than a business now.

Hopefully he is a better shooter than his numbers show. On paper, it looks like we replaced Soares with the exact same player.

Wow! Great news.

Looks like we found a PG!

Is there anyone in the portal that can shoot 40% from three? If so, we should offer them the world.

I love Coach Altman and will support him for as long as he is at Oregon, but he is the guy that recruited all these players that are limited on the offensive side of the ball. You can't be surprised when support is down if you have a team that struggles to score 60 points a game, has the worst 3-point shooting percentage since 1999, and leads the Pac-12 in roster turnover each year. Especially when you have had the kind of success that Altman has had with this program over the past 10+ years. He can be upset all he wants, but he set the bar and is now failing to meet it. For the record, I am 100% on board with Altman staying for as long as he wants. He has earned it and I think he has the ability to fix this.

The point of bad offense and even worse shooting should not be overlooked. Did we really expect anything different this year, considering the last two recruiting cycles? Oregon has consistently brought in below average shooters at the guard and small forward position. Here is what our guard / small forward three point shooting percentages were before they joined Oregon: Guerrier was 26% at Syracuse, Soares was 34% at a junior college, Couisnard was 30% at South Carolina (and an even more tragic 37% from the floor), Barthelemy was 33% at Colorado, and Rigsby was 37% at a junior college. Williams was actually decent at 43%, but somehow he couldn't get on the floor all year. I have no idea how he hit that percentage, considering his shot has no arch and no rotation. Bottom line - We have a bunch of below average college shooters and need some significant turnover at the guard and small forward position if Oregon wants to try and make a run at the tournament next year. Tracey is a good start, shooting 43% from three.

Wow...that was unexpected. Nice job Ducks!

Serious question - why not? The BIG already got what they wanted...payday, access to LA recruiting, etc. What benefit does the BIG have to make things easier on USC and UCLA? I would almost argue the opposite. The more that USC and UCLA struggle, the bigger benefit to the existing BIG schools.

That was an interesting read. Thank you for sharing!

Oregon is 9-0 vs. the BIG since 2017 if you include the incoming LA schools in that group.

Football is tough enough as it is. Just look at USC's record when playing at Notre Dame in the eastern time zone. They have not won in South Bend in the past 12 years. Their last win in South Bend was in 2011. To your point, it is going to even more difficult for basketball and some Olympic sports may not even be sustainable. It was a HUGE mistake for UCLA and USC not to insist on having at least 4 teams to create a west coast pod and now they have lost all their leverage. Getting my popcorn ready.

That was a great article. Thank you for posting. This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I don't think the BIG invite will come for any of the remaining PAC-10 schools. I believe that Warren wanted to get to 20 teams, but the BIG school presidents saw an opportunity and they are not stupid. Getting the LA market and big pay days for their existing member schools was a no brainer for everyone (Warren, Presidents, FOX, etc). The BIG presidents know that adding those two teams without additional west coast travel partners is a HUGE benefit for all of the existing BIG member schools. What is their incentive to vote to add more west coast schools at this point? The more difficult you make the transition for USC and UCLA, the bigger benefit there is for each of the existing member schools. Take a look at the winning percentage of NFL teams on the west coast that travel to play east coast games. There is a clear disadvantage that has been documented for years. Now add in the fact that these are college kids (not professionals) with classes and the fact that the LA schools don't have a west coast conference like NFL teams do. Yikes! If Oregon was able to go into LA and dominate recruiting for the past 12 years, think about what tOSU, Michigan and Penn State are going to be able to do there. Now imagine that the transition is tough due increased travel on top of a a whole host of other issues. Teams like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan State are going to be licking their chops. The existing BIG member schools want this transition to be as difficult as possible! Someone posted an article about yearly partnerships with UCLA, tOSU, Michigan, and USC. It makes perfect sense. Michigan and tOSU want to play in LA every other year so they can raid the LA recruiting grounds. The funny thing is that USC and UCLA got used and they don't even know it yet. What a terrible decision to make that jump without insisting on some west coast partners.

That seems like a smart idea.

@Tandaian - Nice update! So it looks like we are in good position for the 3-way tie as well. @Penn Duck - Thank you for all the information you post for us to read! I just got confused when I read the 247 article, which states "In short, Oregon needs to win out and see either ASU get swept by the LA schools or lose at UCLA." Why does Oregon need to win out? I am probably missing something, but here is what I am thinking: If Oregon splits and ASU gets swept, both team finish 11-9. The tie breaker is then record against the highest rated team, correct? Both would be 0-2 against UCLA, so it moves to AZ. Both are 1-1 against AZ, so it moves to USC. Oregon would be 1-0 and ASU would be 0-2 USC. Tie breaker goes to Oregon. Seems like Oregon would get the 4 seed with a split and ASU getting swept. Am I missing something?