|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 20, 2023 11:00:20 GMT -8
Oregon and UW are fighting for the Pac12 money until the bitter end. Especially UW who has seen a precipitous drop in big donor money and is debt. Both counted on the Pac12 $ being there when they accepted the ridiculously lowball B10 offer of $30 mil per +1 mil more each of the next few years. I believe Maryland and Rutgers are now due to make full B10 shares. That in and of itself is embarrassing. All to finish middle of the pack. I have never understood some of the comments here about East coast eyes, being taken seriously, etc. By who? What real difference does it make? OSU/WSU will be seen "seriously" because we pick some select G5 teams (that can't afford their buyouts or extra travel)? OSU/WSU will be taken seriously by winning... even with a merged conference. OSU will have to up their NC slate in football and baseball, but that is already the case. The merged conference will still be a P5 conference and the winner still has the possibility of being in the top 12 of the CFP poll. For OSU it is a much better opportunity to be in the CFP conversation than if the Pac12 remained as OSU was never going to be consistently at the top of the Pac12 (sorry... it's a complete and utter fantasy if you think that) and in the title game to be in the CFP conversation. But, with all this speculation none of the CFP, supposed national respect, etc matters. MONEY does. Keeping programs funded/ Keeping coaches funded. And to make that happen, whatever it takes, is all that counts. The merger and going on as Pac2 are both realities right now. The B12 invite is not. But, more important is the control of the Pac12 revenue stream. That decisions changes or reinforces everything the OSU/WSU brain trust has planned. I think the fight should be to recruit the Universities that will be harmed in the long term by the merger For example: Go after Baylor, Huston, Texas Tech, and TCU from the Big 12 before they get relegated out when there isn't enough TV money to pay all those teams. Grab Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, and Nebraska from the Big 10 I know that's wishful thinking but the message needs to be sent, if you are perceived as a team that takes more than it gives its not a matter of when you will be left behind. Let the Beavs and the Cougs become agents of chaos! That's going to happen due to the length of new contracts and buyouts. Plus I'm not sure any of those schools see themselves in the "as a team that takes more than it gives" category. And, truly the time to add/rebuild a conference is when the next contract come about and a super conference is formed. No one will want to be fodder for that conference. Hence, you are waiting in the wings for a separate conference of very good schools, with solid Athletic Departments, and are tired of being treated like inferiors. Media partners might want it to be like a 60 team conference with staggered payouts. But, after all this I think it'd be easy to convince the have nots that to bottom 30-36 of that "super" conference is basically practice fodder to create inventory. Take away inventory by organizing a division with a couple (4) conferences/(16) teams, or (6) conferences/(12) teams with it's own payout, and a playoff system like the FCS currently has. There will be plenty of takers and plenty of quality inventory for media partners. I'd think the "supers" would effing hate the competition for inventory, but mostly the top teams would not be able to schedule 3-4+ games against cupcakes. No more undefeated teams... and 64+ teams are out from under the thumb of the same old "haves". But, in the next year+ there is no way to attract teams from other conferences that have ingrained media deals. They can't afford they buyouts, more travel, and the unknown media partner(s). Teams will play it safe for a while. OSU/WSU aren't because they've been forced into the position to be creative and aggressive. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 20, 2023 11:14:01 GMT -8
Wait, I thought nobody watches SJSU? Yep, they're going to have to get creative with scheduling. That'll be one nice thing about being top dogs in the conference, a bunch of OSU games will get best starting times for whoever the TV provider is. On the occasions we've had favorable scheduling we've drawn a good number of eyeballs. It's possible TV viewership could be better than its been several of the ladt 6-8 seasons. We could play all our games in spring, like that other football league. Just being snarky.
My point all along is that if we rebuild the Pac, then we need to be selective otherwise we will lose any legitimacy that we have tried to earn. We need to be taken seriously. I could see SJSU being a member of the Pac, even if the traitors come crawling back.
But to turn away Oregon or Washington or even USC or UCLA would simply be foolish. Those teams are frequently discussed in the media and media exposure is important, if we want a Power 5 conference.
If we aren't looking to be a Power 5 conference, then that's a whole 'nother discussion.
I think because they are taking the time to verify they have a two year grace period, OSU/WSU intents to be selective and give themselves options. If they had to be a full conference next year I think they have to do the fully MWC merger. (reverse merger, of course). But knowing they have time, doing the work to make sure they have it, is a clear signal they are going to rebuild carefully and not just out of time pressure. Undoubtedly most of the MWC is probably on the table, but I think OSU/WSU can start hard selling on other teams to join up, particularly seeing if their is an option to get Cal and Stanford to come back (I have no idea if this is possible, if they signed GORs yet or anything) I think they took the stability of a conference invite over the unknown. But if the unknown becomes more known, maybe they elected to not have to literally travel to the entire east coast for every away game. Seriously their travel situation is worse than the Big-10 schools. Just pure unbacked conjecture, I haven't looked to see if they can exit at all, or if that is even known. Obviously the challenge is if you don't have a media deal, what are you going to tell teams? Selling to teams will be really hard. But we could try (key word) to see if we could pluck off a few Also-rans from other conferences maybe looking increase their odds at a playoff seat. The new Pac-12 creates interesting opportunity to be in a league were most teams are on pretty equal competitive footing to earn that Playoff bid. Sure it is a risky and I am sure 95% of middling teams would just rather have the money than the on-field success... but there are a lot of "Purdue or Kansas St" tier teams in other conferences that usually pretty good, but will probably never be better or out recruit the major blue bloods in their conference. That in itself could be a selling point. The small fish in a big pond versus a big fish in a small pond idea. Because make no mistake, CFP is going to be BIG business. Huge business. Just getting there can be a huge boon to teams, to be considered "A playoff team". Increasing your odds of having a realistic shot of getting there maybe worth the difference in several million a year in media money. Just a thought, probably not a realistic one. Of course we know this is as much about an annual budget and funding is as it is about anything else. Like I said, I imagine most "also-rans" are perfectly fine being that. Remember, Bobby D was absolutely, perfectly, and abundantly happy with OSU being a Pac-12 also ran year over year with Riley. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 20, 2023 11:21:42 GMT -8
Oregon and UW are fighting for the Pac12 money until the bitter end. Especially UW who has seen a precipitous drop in big donor money and is debt. Both counted on the Pac12 $ being there when they accepted the ridiculously lowball B10 offer of $30 mil per +1 mil more each of the next few years. I believe Maryland and Rutgers are now due to make full B10 shares. That in and of itself is embarrassing. All to finish middle of the pack. I have never understood some of the comments here about East coast eyes, being taken seriously, etc. By who? What real difference does it make? OSU/WSU will be seen "seriously" because we pick some select G5 teams (that can't afford their buyouts or extra travel)? OSU/WSU will be taken seriously by winning... even with a merged conference. OSU will have to up their NC slate in football and baseball, but that is already the case. The merged conference will still be a P5 conference and the winner still has the possibility of being in the top 12 of the CFP poll. For OSU it is a much better opportunity to be in the CFP conversation than if the Pac12 remained as OSU was never going to be consistently at the top of the Pac12 (sorry... it's a complete and utter fantasy if you think that) and in the title game to be in the CFP conversation. But, with all this speculation none of the CFP, supposed national respect, etc matters. MONEY does. Keeping programs funded/ Keeping coaches funded. And to make that happen, whatever it takes, is all that counts. The merger and going on as Pac2 are both realities right now. The B12 invite is not. But, more important is the control of the Pac12 revenue stream. That decisions changes or reinforces everything the OSU/WSU brain trust has planned. I think the fight should be to recruit the Universities that will be harmed in the long term by the merger For example: Go after Baylor, Huston, Texas Tech, and TCU from the Big 12 before they get relegated out when there isn't enough TV money to pay all those teams. Grab Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, and Nebraska from the Big 10 I know that's wishful thinking but the message needs to be sent, if you are perceived as a team that takes more than it gives its not a matter of when you will be left behind. Let the Beavs and the Cougs become agents of chaos! There likely will be disgruntled schools, both P5 teams and higher ranked G5 schools, that will be ripe for the picking at each of the next two years. I've thought all along that if it's either a reverse merger or a relegation model with 2 eight team conferences, it ain't done yet. There's no reason to be finished after this first round that hopefully happens shortly. The Pac could expand by a couple/few schools to 16 or 18, if it's a 2 conference relegation scenario, there's plenty of room to add schools. I'm hoping the groundwork is laid by December so OSU does not get hit hard in recruiting or in the portal. After that, if it takes a year or two to fill in the conference to it's eventual full size, there's no big hurry - there should be opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 20, 2023 11:29:00 GMT -8
Oregon and UW are fighting for the Pac12 money until the bitter end. Especially UW who has seen a precipitous drop in big donor money and is debt. Both counted on the Pac12 $ being there when they accepted the ridiculously lowball B10 offer of $30 mil per +1 mil more each of the next few years. I believe Maryland and Rutgers are now due to make full B10 shares. That in and of itself is embarrassing. All to finish middle of the pack. I have never understood some of the comments here about East coast eyes, being taken seriously, etc. By who? What real difference does it make? OSU/WSU will be seen "seriously" because we pick some select G5 teams (that can't afford their buyouts or extra travel)? OSU/WSU will be taken seriously by winning... even with a merged conference. OSU will have to up their NC slate in football and baseball, but that is already the case. The merged conference will still be a P5 conference and the winner still has the possibility of being in the top 12 of the CFP poll. For OSU it is a much better opportunity to be in the CFP conversation than if the Pac12 remained as OSU was never going to be consistently at the top of the Pac12 (sorry... it's a complete and utter fantasy if you think that) and in the title game to be in the CFP conversation. But, with all this speculation none of the CFP, supposed national respect, etc matters. MONEY does. Keeping programs funded/ Keeping coaches funded. And to make that happen, whatever it takes, is all that counts. The merger and going on as Pac2 are both realities right now. The B12 invite is not. But, more important is the control of the Pac12 revenue stream. That decisions changes or reinforces everything the OSU/WSU brain trust has planned. I think the fight should be to recruit the Universities that will be harmed in the long term by the merger For example: Go after Baylor, Huston, Texas Tech, and TCU from the Big 12 before they get relegated out when there isn't enough TV money to pay all those teams. Grab Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, and Nebraska from the Big 10 I know that's wishful thinking but the message needs to be sent, if you are perceived as a team that takes more than it gives its not a matter of when you will be left behind. Let the Beavs and the Cougs become agents of chaos! Yes. Every "also-ran" is at risk. Not next year, not in a couple years... but certainly in the next decade. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 20, 2023 11:41:53 GMT -8
I think the fight should be to recruit the Universities that will be harmed in the long term by the merger For example: Go after Baylor, Huston, Texas Tech, and TCU from the Big 12 before they get relegated out when there isn't enough TV money to pay all those teams. Grab Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, and Nebraska from the Big 10 I know that's wishful thinking but the message needs to be sent, if you are perceived as a team that takes more than it gives its not a matter of when you will be left behind. Let the Beavs and the Cougs become agents of chaos! There likely will be disgruntled schools, both P5 teams and higher ranked G5 schools, that will be ripe for the picking at each of the next two years. I've thought all along that if it's either a reverse merger or a relegation model with 2 eight team conferences, it ain't done yet. There's no reason to be finished after this first round that hopefully happens shortly. The Pac could expand by a couple/few schools to 16 or 18, if it's a 2 conference relegation scenario, there's plenty of room to add schools. I'm hoping the groundwork is laid by December so OSU does not get hit hard in recruiting or in the portal. After that, if it takes a year or two to fill in the conference to it's eventual full size, there's no big hurry - there should be opportunities. Lets ignore the reality of contracts and GORs for a second. Look at say... Nebraska. a very prideful (delusional) fan base that will always think they are better than they are. None of them accept it isn't 1995 any longer. They have made the Big-10 title game exactly once since they joined, in their second year, 2012, where they proceeded to lose 70-31 to Wisconsin. They last won 9 games in 2016 with Riley. That was also the last time they had a winning record. They are not getting better anytime soon, particularly in the Big that now has Oregon, UW, USC and UCLA added to the mix. They are a floundering mediocre team that cannot get traction in an overcrowded conference. What happens if they leave and get a little breathing room in a Pac-12 that has OSU, WSU, and maybe the top 6 to 8 MWC teams. Is that a situation where suddenly Nebraska may be on a faster track to both just win again overall and then actually have a real shot at a playoff spot? Is that worth it again? the Pac-12 will likely hold on to P5 status, particularly if a few "big" teams join. Nobody will talk about Nebraska as an also-ran in the Big, but they will talk about them as a contender in the Pac. Nebraska the expectation is championships. to get there you gotta have a seat at the table. It is a lot harder to find yourself at the top of the Big than a new Pac-12. Just being realistic. Just throwing out a hypothetical. Obviously I think the GOR makes this probably impossible, I think the Big is locked in until the 2030s... |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Oct 20, 2023 11:57:27 GMT -8
I believe the ultimate goal is to be in the premier Pacific TZ and Mountain TZ conference. I don't know the path to that destination. And part of that goal is financially surviving until it happens.
I'd like to know the GOR or lack of GOR that Cal Berkeley, Stanford, Utah and the Arizona's have signed. I'm still dumbfounded by Cal and Stanford's actions. I'm sure they will be the first "regrettors." After that, Utah, Arizona and Arizona State are going to miss playing games in California.
An eight-team conference with OSU, WSU, Stanford, Cal, San Diego State, ASU, Arizona and Utah would be very good. I believe there would be a fair and respectable media contract with those teams. But how do you get the corner schools to say "sorry" to the Plains League (B12)? Did Cal and Stanford pledge their foundations to the ACC? When could San Diego State get away without huge penalties?
And from this, you could build. It would be painful for hole and uw to continue traveling to Lake Erie only to get beat and not receive a financial bonus. The same story for UCLA. Even the over-inflated egos in south central LA would feel left out.
But I suspect it's not realistic. I'm guessing these other institutions got contractually locked into their panic decisions.
For Oregon State and Washington State the fire at the door is how to keep the athletic budgets at around $90M instead of going to $65M.
And I disagree about OSU not being consistently in the top half of the current P12. Gary Andersen was an abomination. If you dump those years and JS's first three (the direct result of Andersen) OSU's record is 139-93 starting in 1999. I didn't look exclusively at conference games, but I think we are plus 500. Our margin of error is small. The Andersen hire created a six-year record of 16-51. But sustained success can happen and the reality it is happening. If we define success as top 10 finishes, we will fail. But if we define success as averaging 7.5 wins/year that's exactly what we are doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 20, 2023 12:10:35 GMT -8
I thought I read somewhere that at least a few of the schools signed GOR contracts immediately upon acceptance. I can’t imagine existing conference members, that have already signed GOR contracts, voting to add any school unless it were stipulated that a GOR was signed as part of admission to the conference. Just because we haven’t seen a GOR contract doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Oct 20, 2023 12:16:58 GMT -8
I was curious about OSU's PAC record since 1999. And I've thrown out the Andersen years and the following three-year hangover that hiring caused. So I'm removing 2015 - 2020 (inclusive). The following is our series against conference opponents in this era. It also includes this year to date. Note: I think two of the Utah games were not conference games.
Arizona 12-2
ASU 9-7
California 13-5
Colorado 3-1
hole 6-12
Stanford 9-8
UCLA 6-7
usc 5-10
Utah 5-4
Washington 9-9
WSU 11-7
This sums to 88 wins and 72 losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Oct 20, 2023 12:42:27 GMT -8
There likely will be disgruntled schools, both P5 teams and higher ranked G5 schools, that will be ripe for the picking at each of the next two years. I've thought all along that if it's either a reverse merger or a relegation model with 2 eight team conferences, it ain't done yet. There's no reason to be finished after this first round that hopefully happens shortly. The Pac could expand by a couple/few schools to 16 or 18, if it's a 2 conference relegation scenario, there's plenty of room to add schools. I'm hoping the groundwork is laid by December so OSU does not get hit hard in recruiting or in the portal. After that, if it takes a year or two to fill in the conference to it's eventual full size, there's no big hurry - there should be opportunities. Lets ignore the reality of contracts and GORs for a second. Look at say... Nebraska. a very prideful (delusional) fan base that will always think they are better than they are. None of them accept it isn't 1995 any longer. They have made the Big-10 title game exactly once since they joined, in their second year, 2012, where they proceeded to lose 70-31 to Wisconsin. They last won 9 games in 2016 with Riley. That was also the last time they had a winning record. They are not getting better anytime soon, particularly in the Big that now has Oregon, UW, USC and UCLA added to the mix. They are a floundering mediocre team that cannot get traction in an overcrowded conference. What happens if they leave and get a little breathing room in a Pac-12 that has OSU, WSU, and maybe the top 6 to 8 MWC teams. Is that a situation where suddenly Nebraska may be on a faster track to both just win again overall and then actually have a real shot at a playoff spot? Is that worth it again? the Pac-12 will likely hold on to P5 status, particularly if a few "big" teams join. Nobody will talk about Nebraska as an also-ran in the Big, but they will talk about them as a contender in the Pac. Nebraska the expectation is championships. to get there you gotta have a seat at the table. It is a lot harder to find yourself at the top of the Big than a new Pac-12. Just being realistic. Just throwing out a hypothetical. Obviously I think the GOR makes this probably impossible, I think the Big is locked in until the 2030s... That program is so bloated with full time positions, holding onto them have become more important than doing what it take to win. Their AD reported over 143 million in revenue last year. I don't see them choosing a more attractive competitive situation over keeping the gravy train going for so many people. Now if the net revenue was in the same ballpark then I could see it. That said, they are now finally at a point where their fans/boosters have accepted and admitted it will take a lot of patience and a steady incremental build to compete at the upper level of the B1G. Their chosen ones miserable failure, in full meltdown fashion, has done that program and fanbase a favor as far as the future is concerned. His complete and utter collapse while given every advantage and benefit of the doubt helped to finally burn down all the old expectations. Their D is actually quite good this year. They are not far from being 5-1 right now. A 3 point opening road loss at Minnesota, in a game they should have won, and a QB who looked more like a PEZ dispenser at CU than a QB. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Oct 20, 2023 12:51:46 GMT -8
We could play all our games in spring, like that other football league. Just being snarky.
My point all along is that if we rebuild the Pac, then we need to be selective otherwise we will lose any legitimacy that we have tried to earn. We need to be taken seriously. I could see SJSU being a member of the Pac, even if the traitors come crawling back.
But to turn away Oregon or Washington or even USC or UCLA would simply be foolish. Those teams are frequently discussed in the media and media exposure is important, if we want a Power 5 conference.
If we aren't looking to be a Power 5 conference, then that's a whole 'nother discussion.
I think because they are taking the time to verify they have a two year grace period, OSU/WSU intents to be selective and give themselves options. If they had to be a full conference next year I think they have to do the fully MWC merger. (reverse merger, of course). But knowing they have time, doing the work to make sure they have it, is a clear signal they are going to rebuild carefully and not just out of time pressure. Undoubtedly most of the MWC is probably on the table, but I think OSU/WSU can start hard selling on other teams to join up, particularly seeing if their is an option to get Cal and Stanford to come back (I have no idea if this is possible, if they signed GORs yet or anything) I think they took the stability of a conference invite over the unknown. But if the unknown becomes more known, maybe they elected to not have to literally travel to the entire east coast for every away game. Seriously their travel situation is worse than the Big-10 schools. Just pure unbacked conjecture, I haven't looked to see if they can exit at all, or if that is even known. Obviously the challenge is if you don't have a media deal, what are you going to tell teams? Selling to teams will be really hard. But we could try (key word) to see if we could pluck off a few Also-rans from other conferences maybe looking increase their odds at a playoff seat. The new Pac-12 creates interesting opportunity to be in a league were most teams are on pretty equal competitive footing to earn that Playoff bid. Sure it is a risky and I am sure 95% of middling teams would just rather have the money than the on-field success... but there are a lot of "Purdue or Kansas St" tier teams in other conferences that usually pretty good, but will probably never be better or out recruit the major blue bloods in their conference. That in itself could be a selling point. The small fish in a big pond versus a big fish in a small pond idea. Because make no mistake, CFP is going to be BIG business. Huge business. Just getting there can be a huge boon to teams, to be considered "A playoff team". Increasing your odds of having a realistic shot of getting there maybe worth the difference in several million a year in media money. Just a thought, probably not a realistic one. Of course we know this is as much about an annual budget and funding is as it is about anything else. Like I said, I imagine most "also-rans" are perfectly fine being that. Remember, Bobby D was absolutely, perfectly, and abundantly happy with OSU being a Pac-12 also ran year over year with Riley.
You obviously have a different memory of the Riley years than I do. I remember us going down to the final game of the regular season competing for the Rose Bowl and the conference championship at least twice, and remember us playing (and generally winning) bowl games in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2013. I think when Andersen took over in 2015 we still had the third-most conference wins of any conference team in the 21st century. |
|
|
|
Post by messi on Oct 20, 2023 13:17:43 GMT -8
I think because they are taking the time to verify they have a two year grace period, OSU/WSU intents to be selective and give themselves options. If they had to be a full conference next year I think they have to do the fully MWC merger. (reverse merger, of course). But knowing they have time, doing the work to make sure they have it, is a clear signal they are going to rebuild carefully and not just out of time pressure. Undoubtedly most of the MWC is probably on the table, but I think OSU/WSU can start hard selling on other teams to join up, particularly seeing if their is an option to get Cal and Stanford to come back (I have no idea if this is possible, if they signed GORs yet or anything) I think they took the stability of a conference invite over the unknown. But if the unknown becomes more known, maybe they elected to not have to literally travel to the entire east coast for every away game. Seriously their travel situation is worse than the Big-10 schools. Just pure unbacked conjecture, I haven't looked to see if they can exit at all, or if that is even known. Obviously the challenge is if you don't have a media deal, what are you going to tell teams? Selling to teams will be really hard. But we could try (key word) to see if we could pluck off a few Also-rans from other conferences maybe looking increase their odds at a playoff seat. The new Pac-12 creates interesting opportunity to be in a league were most teams are on pretty equal competitive footing to earn that Playoff bid. Sure it is a risky and I am sure 95% of middling teams would just rather have the money than the on-field success... but there are a lot of "Purdue or Kansas St" tier teams in other conferences that usually pretty good, but will probably never be better or out recruit the major blue bloods in their conference. That in itself could be a selling point. The small fish in a big pond versus a big fish in a small pond idea. Because make no mistake, CFP is going to be BIG business. Huge business. Just getting there can be a huge boon to teams, to be considered "A playoff team". Increasing your odds of having a realistic shot of getting there maybe worth the difference in several million a year in media money. Just a thought, probably not a realistic one. Of course we know this is as much about an annual budget and funding is as it is about anything else. Like I said, I imagine most "also-rans" are perfectly fine being that. Remember, Bobby D was absolutely, perfectly, and abundantly happy with OSU being a Pac-12 also ran year over year with Riley.
You obviously have a different memory of the Riley years than I do. I remember us going down to the final game of the regular season competing for the Rose Bowl and the conference championship at least twice, and remember us playing (and generally winning) bowl games in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2013. I think when Andersen took over in 2015 we still had the third-most conference wins of any conference team in the 21st century. I can see the Riley II era split into two different periods. Pre-2010, featured all the highlights. 10 win season in 2006. A win away from the Rose Bowl in 2008 and 2009. But once the calendar flipped to the 2010s, that's when most of the negatives happened. Losses to Sacramento State and Eastern Washington. Blowing the lead in the Alamo Bowl. Every opposing quarterback looking like Michael Vick. I don't know how to explain it, but it was as if I saw two different programs. |
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Oct 20, 2023 13:31:31 GMT -8
You obviously have a different memory of the Riley years than I do. I remember us going down to the final game of the regular season competing for the Rose Bowl and the conference championship at least twice, and remember us playing (and generally winning) bowl games in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2013. I think when Andersen took over in 2015 we still had the third-most conference wins of any conference team in the 21st century. I can see the Riley II era split into two different periods. Pre-2010, featured all the highlights. 10 win season in 2006. A win away from the Rose Bowl in 2008 and 2009. But once the calendar flipped to the 2010s, that's when most of the negatives happened. Losses to Sacramento State and Eastern Washington. Blowing the lead in the Alamo Bowl. Every opposing quarterback looking like Michael Vick. I don't know how to explain it, but it was as if I saw two different programs. Agreed! That's exactly how I saw it. And a lot of people in my section of the stadium would have also agreed. A lot of folks became anti-Riley and EXTREMELY Anti-Banker during that time (and I think ducks having so much success w/Chip didn't help matters). Midway through 2013 the wheels really fell off. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Oct 20, 2023 13:42:06 GMT -8
You obviously have a different memory of the Riley years than I do. I remember us going down to the final game of the regular season competing for the Rose Bowl and the conference championship at least twice, and remember us playing (and generally winning) bowl games in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2013. I think when Andersen took over in 2015 we still had the third-most conference wins of any conference team in the 21st century. I can see the Riley II era split into two different periods. Pre-2010, featured all the highlights. 10 win season in 2006. A win away from the Rose Bowl in 2008 and 2009. But once the calendar flipped to the 2010s, that's when most of the negatives happened. Losses to Sacramento State and Eastern Washington. Blowing the lead in the Alamo Bowl. Every opposing quarterback looking like Michael Vick. I don't know how to explain it, but it was as if I saw two different programs. 2012 featured a 6-0 start with zero cupcakes: Wisconsin @ucla @arizona WSU @byu UTAH Then came a game @ UW, who was flailing at the time if my recollection is right, and the Canzona article promising the Huskies the Beavers were coming up to punch them in the mouth. Just the thing their coaches needed to get their players attention. I think it was Wheaton who took the crown of a helmet in the chin while going up to make a catch. Now that Canzano is no longer at the O, has he ever confessed who paid him to write that article. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Oct 20, 2023 13:42:48 GMT -8
I can see the Riley II era split into two different periods. Pre-2010, featured all the highlights. 10 win season in 2006. A win away from the Rose Bowl in 2008 and 2009. But once the calendar flipped to the 2010s, that's when most of the negatives happened. Losses to Sacramento State and Eastern Washington. Blowing the lead in the Alamo Bowl. Every opposing quarterback looking like Michael Vick. I don't know how to explain it, but it was as if I saw two different programs. Agreed! That's exactly how I saw it. And a lot of people in my section of the stadium would have also agreed. A lot of folks became anti-Riley and EXTREMELY Anti-Banker during that time (and I think ducks having so much success w/Chip didn't help matters). Midway through 2013 the wheels really fell off. And Riley left after the 2014 season. So he had maybe 1.5 years of "wheels falling off" in a 14-year span, and had he stayed we were poised to be much better in 2015 before Andersen burned everything to the ground. Not necessarily disagreeing about a slight decline after 2010, but the BDC/Riley era, from 2003-14, is by far the most consistently successful in the 100+ years of Oregon State football. |
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Oct 20, 2023 13:53:04 GMT -8
Agreed! That's exactly how I saw it. And a lot of people in my section of the stadium would have also agreed. A lot of folks became anti-Riley and EXTREMELY Anti-Banker during that time (and I think ducks having so much success w/Chip didn't help matters). Midway through 2013 the wheels really fell off. And Riley left after the 2014 season. So he had maybe 1.5 years of "wheels falling off" in a 14-year span, and had he stayed we were poised to be much better in 2015 before Andersen burned everything to the ground. Not necessarily disagreeing about a slight decline after 2010, but the BDC/Riley era, from 2003-14, is by far the most consistently successful in the 100+ years of Oregon State football. Yep.. and 7-5 or 8-4 sure looked great a few years later when GAG was telling us that all they needed to do was toughen up. What a disaster. |
|
