Oregon State Beavers 2025 (3 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
If they're looking to have a decent football conference, what would be the point of adding Gonzaga? Honestly, Montana and Montana St would make more sense...
 
upload_2024-9-23_15-50-20.png


BoBoBREWSKI said:
There obviously is value in adding one of the top basketball schools. Won't the conference get $ from when Gonzaga advances in the tournament each year?
Click to expand...

about 2M per game in March Madness. If the Pax-X negotiates a media deal for football where each school earns 10M/year (maybe more; maybe less?), then Gonzaga would have to advance to the final-4 each year in order for the conference to break even. And this assumes that Gonzaga has agreed to give every penny of that pay-out to the conference. They might be keeping some for themselves

having Gonzaga within the conference for basketball might make for a slight upward bump in any media deal, but it won't be by much

*************************************************************

and the AAC apparently is pushing back on the rumors of the Pac-X raiding some of their teams:


 
SlyPokerDog said:
Click to expand...


yeah...that's looking like it would have been the best option for OSU/WSU. Actually, maybe the best option was to NOT have signed that scheduling deal with the MWC that contained such heavily punitive clauses for stealing MWC teams

if it's true that no AAC teams are interested in the Pac-X, the only option for the Pac-X may be paying thu the nose to add two more MWC teams
 
BoBoBREWSKI said:
Utah State is in.
And now is sounds like because of Utah State leaving for the PAC, UNLV has changed its mind about staying in the MWC and is looking at its options again.
Click to expand...
UNLV would be a great addition. I don't really see the point of Utah State but if it's just to get to an 8th member then whatever - that's fine.
 
Brian Meehan of the Spokesman Review is deny that Gonzaga to Pac 10 is true.
 
wizenheimer said:
Actually, maybe the best option was to NOT have signed that scheduling deal with the MWC that contained such heavily punitive clauses for stealing MWC teams
Click to expand...
Knowing what we know now yes it was probably better to have not signed the deal. Was total chaos at the time with huge pressure to get opponents scheduled. Also a lot has changed such as breakdown of other MWC negotiations that was not known back then. Also didnt even know there would be any pac12 settlement.

Really don't think OSU or WSU has made many bad moves the last few years, most of their situation is just the reality of being the smaller rural school in two smaller states.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Knowing what we know now yes it was probably better to have not signed the deal. Was total chaos at the time with huge pressure to get opponents scheduled. Also a lot has changed such as breakdown of other MWC negotiations that was not known back then. Also didnt even know there would be any pac12 settlement.

Really don't think OSU or WSU has made many bad moves the last few years, most of their situation is just the reality of being the smaller rural school in two smaller states.
Click to expand...

the chaos was the collapse of the Pac-12 was in the first week of August, 2023. It was 4 months later when the scheduling agreement was made. Obviously, there was a little bit of urgency at that time, but the 2024 season was 9 months away. They had those 4 months to consider options and plan for the best way forward. And frankly, the MWC was about the only viable option. There was plenty of talk about the terms of that scheduling agreement at the time it was announced. Primarily about how the Pac-2 had painted themselves into a very expensive corner if they wanted to keep the Pac-12 brand alive. A 25-30M exit fee for MWC teams was widely viewed as insanely excessive, especially considering that the MWC only had ONE season left on the media deal after the one year scheduling agreement

as far as 'bad moves', the 3 biggest supporters of Larry Scott were the presidents of ASU, OSU, WSU....and he was the Typhoid Larry for the Pac-12. I'd also point at OSU's decision to renovate Reser, the result being a reduction in capacity from 45,700 to 35,600. Reducing stadium capacity by 10,000 is the wrong direction for a program wanting to join a Power-4 conference

**************************************************

something else as well: 23 years ago, in 2001, Oregon made a commitment to expanding their brand. And this was before Phil Knight's money started to flow into facilities. That was the year of the Joey Harrington billboard in NYC. That was a few years before Oregon started having dozens of uniform combinations. The Oregon AD made the conscious decision to ramp up branding and raise the UofO's profile. I mean, is there a more recognizable mascot than the Oregon Duck?

and at the time, and for 15-20 years afterward, OSU fans and officials, and sometimes even the coaches, ridiculed Oregon's branding efforts. That dismissal was parroted by Dwight Jaynes and Canzano. "Style over substance" was the refrain coming out of Corvallis and the printing presses at the Oregonian. The criticism was coming hot and heavy. Over and over and over. Oregon was all "flash" while OSU did things "the right way".

maybe, just maybe, if OSU had spent a lot less time pissing on Oregon's branding efforts, and more time working on their own, they wouldn't be in the situation they are
 
wizenheimer said:
the chaos was the collapse of the Pac-12 was in the first week of August, 2023. It was 4 months later when the scheduling agreement was made. Obviously, there was a little bit of urgency at that time, but the 2024 season was 9 months away. They had those 4 months to consider options and plan for the best way forward. And frankly, the MWC was about the only viable option. There was plenty of talk about the terms of that scheduling agreement at the time it was announced. Primarily about how the Pac-2 had painted themselves into a very expensive corner if they wanted to keep the Pac-12 brand alive. A 25-30M exit fee for MWC teams was widely viewed as insanely excessive, especially considering that the MWC only had ONE season left on the media deal after the one year scheduling agreement

as far as 'bad moves', the 3 biggest supporters of Larry Scott were the presidents of ASU, OSU, WSU....and he was the Typhoid Larry for the Pac-12. I'd also point at OSU's decision to renovate Reser, the result being a reduction in capacity from 45,700 to 35,600. Reducing stadium capacity by 10,000 is the wrong direction for a program wanting to join a Power-4 conference

**************************************************

something else as well: 23 years ago, in 2001, Oregon made a commitment to expanding their brand. And this was before Phil Knight's money started to flow into facilities. That was the year of the Joey Harrington billboard in NYC. That was a few years before Oregon started having dozens of uniform combinations. The Oregon AD made the conscious decision to ramp up branding and raise the UofO's profile. I mean, is there a more recognizable mascot than the Oregon Duck?

and at the time, and for 15-20 years afterward, OSU fans and officials, and sometimes even the coaches, ridiculed Oregon's branding efforts. That dismissal was parroted by Dwight Jaynes and Canzano. "Style over substance" was the refrain coming out of Corvallis and the printing presses at the Oregonian. The criticism was coming hot and heavy. Over and over and over. Oregon was all "flash" while OSU did things "the right way".

maybe, just maybe, if OSU had spent a lot less time pissing on Oregon's branding efforts, and more time working on their own, they wouldn't be in the situation they are
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was going to say, OSU and WSU have been doing a great job building the conference.

I wish they would have done a better job helping to build up the PAC before.
 
It's too bad that Cal and Stanford decided 30% shares in the ACC would be better than full shares in a rebuilt PAC. Add them back to OSU/WSU and the 4 MWC schools, and you'd have a solid little conference.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
It's too bad that Cal and Stanford decided 30% shares in the ACC would be better than full shares in a rebuilt PAC. Add them back to OSU/WSU and the 4 MWC schools, and you'd have a solid little conference.
Click to expand...
I'm still not totally convinced something like this won't happen sometime in the future.
 
wizenheimer said:
the chaos was the collapse of the Pac-12 was in the first week of August, 2023. It was 4 months later when the scheduling agreement was made. Obviously, there was a little bit of urgency at that time, but the 2024 season was 9 months away. They had those 4 months to consider options and plan for the best way forward. And frankly, the MWC was about the only viable option. There was plenty of talk about the terms of that scheduling agreement at the time it was announced. Primarily about how the Pac-2 had painted themselves into a very expensive corner if they wanted to keep the Pac-12 brand alive. A 25-30M exit fee for MWC teams was widely viewed as insanely excessive, especially considering that the MWC only had ONE season left on the media deal after the one year scheduling agreement

as far as 'bad moves', the 3 biggest supporters of Larry Scott were the presidents of ASU, OSU, WSU....and he was the Typhoid Larry for the Pac-12. I'd also point at OSU's decision to renovate Reser, the result being a reduction in capacity from 45,700 to 35,600. Reducing stadium capacity by 10,000 is the wrong direction for a program wanting to join a Power-4 conference

**************************************************

something else as well: 23 years ago, in 2001, Oregon made a commitment to expanding their brand. And this was before Phil Knight's money started to flow into facilities. That was the year of the Joey Harrington billboard in NYC. That was a few years before Oregon started having dozens of uniform combinations. The Oregon AD made the conscious decision to ramp up branding and raise the UofO's profile. I mean, is there a more recognizable mascot than the Oregon Duck?

and at the time, and for 15-20 years afterward, OSU fans and officials, and sometimes even the coaches, ridiculed Oregon's branding efforts. That dismissal was parroted by Dwight Jaynes and Canzano. "Style over substance" was the refrain coming out of Corvallis and the printing presses at the Oregonian. The criticism was coming hot and heavy. Over and over and over. Oregon was all "flash" while OSU did things "the right way".

maybe, just maybe, if OSU had spent a lot less time pissing on Oregon's branding efforts, and more time working on their own, they wouldn't be in the situation they are
Click to expand...
You can go through every university in the old Pac12 and create a huge list of mistakes as in your post that they made. Sure if the Beavers didn't make mistakes they would've been better. USC, Cal Berkley, UCLA, Arizona State, etc just can make far more mistakes and still have a lot of success. The Beavers and Cougars don't have those advantages and were always trying to do more with less. They had extremely little margin for error in order to succeed.

Yes Phil Knight was not the only reason for Oregon's success - but he was the single biggest reason the last 4 decades. Go back prior to his time and UO/OSU had similar success for more decades prior. Beaver fans shouldn't discount the other things the Ducks did well beyond Knight. Duck fans shouldn't act like Knight and Nike wasn't an instrumental part of their success either. We've seen with the Blazers how "ownership" and other key stakeholders can be a huge positive or huge negative to an organization.

The Beavers had many years, probably even most years the last few decades, where they performed better than those Cal Berkley/Arizona State/UCLA/etc schools while having far less resources. So overall I think they had done a good job. Not a perfect job and maybe not a great job but a very good job. The conference ultimately collapsed in a manner nobody expected and OSU always having to do more with less ended up getting left behind.
 
kjironman1 said:
I'm still not totally convinced something like this won't happen sometime in the future.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think there could be a chance of it, thats why I just want to see UNLV added and the conference stay at 8 teams at this time.

Pac could even offer Stanford/Cal a larger share of the pie than 1/10.

Not sure when Stanford/Cal can get out of the conference with fewer penalties? It also sounds like FSU/Clemson and some others are trying to challenge exit fees from the ACC so that could impact this too.

Standford has such a large endowment I'm not sure how concerned they are with maximizing football revenue. Seems like the Pac being all west coast with little travel could be a huge selling point if the Pac can somehow get the revenue for them close to ACC revenue even if its less.

Stanford/Cal are a big TV draw that it could increase the media rights enough to get the other Pac universities and Pac Presidents to agree to give up a larger share of that pie.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
It's too bad that Cal and Stanford decided 30% shares in the ACC would be better than full shares in a rebuilt PAC. Add them back to OSU/WSU and the 4 MWC schools, and you'd have a solid little conference.
Click to expand...

yeah, that could have been a better option...although a guaranteed 8-10M/year probably looked a lot better, at the time, than a speculative share of whatever a hybrid Pac-X/MWC share would be. That's especially true considering that guaranteed money started in August whereas the speculative payout won't start to 2026

obviously, travel costs will be more. But I'd wonder if people are really over-estimating those costs. If you're flying from the Bay area to the east coast, is the travel cost really that much more if the destination is the Carolina's or Florida rather than Colorado or Utah or Pullman? Either way, you still have to pack; get to the departure airport; make the flight; stay at a hotel; eat meals; travel to the venue; play the game; then do all the travel in reverse. It will take a little longer but all that longer time will be on the plane(s). That's a great time to study!!
 
wizenheimer said:
yeah, that could have been a better option...although a guaranteed 8-10M/year probably looked a lot better, at the time, than a speculative share of whatever a hybrid Pac-X/MWC share would be. That's especially true considering that guaranteed money started in August whereas the speculative payout won't start to 2026
Click to expand...
I'm sure it did--though myopia is a pretty sad excuse for poor decision making. They also would presumably have kept a portion of the Pac12 money that went to OSU/WSU. I don't think there's a way, looking at it holistically, that they come out ahead with their current deal until their ACC share increases in 7 years--and that's only assuming the ACC media money significantly outpaces whatever the PAC is able to cobble together.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Yes Phil Knight was not the only reason for Oregon's success - but he was the single biggest reason the last 4 decades. Go back prior to his time and UO/OSU had similar success for more decades prior.
Click to expand...

if you go back to the 70's and 80's, sure, both programs sucked...and that's being kind. (I'm forever grateful I was in Alaska in 1983 and didn't have to watch the Toilet Bowl)

BUT....dollar one of Phil Knight's money didn't kick in (the Moshovsky practice facility) till late in 1998.

in the 10 years prior, 1989-1998, Oregon went to 7 bowl games. OSU went to 0. Oregon only had 2 losing seasons out of 10; OSU had 10 losing seasons out of 10. The Ducks had turned their program into a winner a decade before Phil Knight joined the party. That's not meant to discount the impact of PK's money. Just meant to demonstrate that Oregon was well down the path to becoming a top-tier program prior to Knight's involvement. The foundation was already in place in Eugene. Not the case in Corvallis

the Beavers didn't have a Phil Knight, but they have just as many wealthy alums as the UofO. But apparently those alums don't care about sports...for the most part

another thing the Ducks had going for them that the Beavers didn't: Mike Bellotti. As a long time Duck fan and alum I think Bellotti's impact on Oregon is significantly underrated. He brought stability to the program. Yeah, Rich Brooks elevated Oregon from the toilet to mediocre-->average. But Bellotti only had one losing season out of 14 as HC and that was a 5-6 season. He won 68% of his games; had the first four 10-11 win seasons in school history; and took his teams to 12 bowl games in 14 years. He was the one who decided that Oregon needed to go to the spread offense and brought in Chip Kelley to implement the spread. It was Bellotti and Steve Greatwood who developed the templates Oregon used to create some of the best OLines in the country. Something else: when Bellotti was head coach, Oregon recruited great defenders and almost always had rugged, solid defenses. Too bad Oregon could have combined a Bellotti defense with a Chip offense. They'd have 2 or 3 national championships
 
wizenheimer said:
if you go back to the 70's and 80's, sure, both programs sucked...and that's being kind. (I'm forever grateful I was in Alaska in 1983 and didn't have to watch the Toilet Bowl)

BUT....dollar one of Phil Knight's money didn't kick in (the Moshovsky practice facility) till late in 1998.

in the 10 years prior, 1989-1998, Oregon went to 7 bowl games. OSU went to 0. Oregon only had 2 losing seasons out of 10; OSU had 10 losing seasons out of 10. The Ducks had turned their program into a winner a decade before Phil Knight joined the party. That's not meant to discount the impact of PK's money. Just meant to demonstrate that Oregon was well down the path to becoming a top-tier program prior to Knight's involvement. The foundation was already in place in Eugene. Not the case in Corvallis

the Beavers didn't have a Phil Knight, but they have just as many wealthy alums as the UofO. But apparently those alums don't care about sports...for the most part

another thing the Ducks had going for them that the Beavers didn't: Mike Bellotti. As a long time Duck fan and alum I think Bellotti's impact on Oregon is significantly underrated. He brought stability to the program. Yeah, Rich Brooks elevated Oregon from the toilet to mediocre-->average. But Bellotti only had one losing season out of 14 as HC and that was a 5-6 season. He won 68% of his games; had the first four 10-11 win seasons in school history; and took his teams to 12 bowl games in 14 years. He was the one who decided that Oregon needed to go to the spread offense and brought in Chip Kelley to implement the spread. It was Bellotti and Steve Greatwood who developed the templates Oregon used to create some of the best OLines in the country. Something else: when Bellotti was head coach, Oregon recruited great defenders and almost always had rugged, solid defenses. Too bad Oregon could have combined a Bellotti defense with a Chip offense. They'd have 2 or 3 national championships
Click to expand...

The bolded part is false. Phil Knight started donating to the U of O in the late 80's.
 
And don't forget that the Ducks are the flagship college program for Nike and have been since at least the early 90's and probably even before that.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I'm sure it did--though myopia is a pretty sad excuse for poor decision making. They also would presumably have kept a portion of the Pac12 money that went to OSU/WSU. I don't think there's a way, looking at it holistically, that they come out ahead with their current deal until their ACC share increases in 7 years--and that's only assuming the ACC media money significantly outpaces whatever the PAC is able to cobble together.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd agree that choosing to be in the ACC with Clemson, FSU, NC. etc. rather than the limbo of OSU/WSU is myopia

also, keep in mind that the 30% share is only for the Tier 1 media payout

upload_2024-9-24_9-4-12.png

that 30% share only applies to Tier 1 football revenue. IIRC there is tier 2 and tier 3 football revenue. It isn't a lot but it's something

those March Madness shares are a significant inducement. This spring, the ACC earned 34M; that was 2.4M per school

the estimates are that Cal/Stanford will earn at least 11-12M year for the next 7 years. So, somewhere around 80M thru 2030. I haven't found anywhere how much the CW network is paying OSU/WSU for the broadcast rights this year. My guess is that it probably isn't more that 5M for each school. If the Pac-X gets 10M/year per school starting in 2026, and that may be a high estimate, then thru 2030, that would be around 60M. Some guesswork of course and maybe my guesses are wrong

obviously, if the ACC dissolves the equations are discarded

**************************************************************

as for the settlement. If you assume the high end of the settlement estimates, it's around 240M. That's 24M from each exiting school. 120M each for OSU/WSU. But if Cal/Stanford 'stayed', it's 8 departing schools and a 190M pool. Split 4 ways that's 47-48M per school.

the Pac-2 has already accrued exit fees to the MWC of 115-120M for 4 schools. There rumors today that Utah State will become the 5th MWC team to join. That would elevate the exit fees due the MWC to 140-150M. I think you have to assume that the PAC will add a 6th MWC team....I don't know where else they will turn....so the payout to the MWC will be 170-175M. That just about wipes out that settlement money

something else: I'm not going to look it up, but those March Madness contracts with the conferences run thru 2030 or 2031, IIRC. So, any game units the former MWC teams earn until that time won't go to the Pac-X, they will be paid to the MWC. Just like OSU/WSU are collecting game units from the departing Pac-12 schools
****************************************************************

the story of the collapse of the Pac-12 are simply chapters of incompetence

that scheduling contract the Pac-2 signed with the MWC is just an adding another chapter to the Pac-12 incompetence story. I mean, for chrissakes, OSU/WSU are paying the MWC 170-175M to steal the likes of Colorado St. and Utah St....??!!!
 
Last edited:
kjironman1 said:
I'm still not totally convinced something like this won't happen sometime in the future.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why it wouldn’t. People are forgetting that 95% of WSU/OSU teams are playing in the WCC. They will return to the PAC X in 2 years if they can land enough teams.
 
wizenheimer said:
how much? and to what? I was talking about the football program by the way
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The fact he donated means more money was available for the football program that would have otherwise went to scholastic endeavors.
 
BoBoBREWSKI said:
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-files-poaching-penalty-lawsuit-federal-court
Click to expand...

Yeah if the Pac can get some of the buyout reduced that will certainly help.

The MWC should certainly get some sort of compensation though, just maybe not quite as much at the largest figures being reported.

Although I'm not sure how much OSU/WSU even care about pocketing any of the pac12 settlement cash. They might just want to do whatever they can to make the conference as good as they can make it going forward.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Jensen Huang is worth about three times what Phil Knight is worth...
Click to expand...
If the Beavs try to field a competitive e-sports team, well yeah maybe NVidia helps.

In regards to Football and athletics - the Nike connection was probably more critical to Ducks success than Phil's cash.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
If the Beavs try to field a competitive e-sports team, well yeah maybe NVidia helps.

In regards to Football and athletics - the Nike connection was probably more critical to Ducks success than Phil's cash.
Click to expand...

And neither of them means jack shit if you don't have coaches that players want to play for. It always comes down to coaching in college
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top