12.Jun.2010 Historical Analysis: PAC-10 v BIG XII

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Do not applaud me. It is not I who speaks to you, but history which speaks through my mouth. –Fustel de Coulanges

On that note, enjoy this collection of history.

The PAC-10, through 2010, versus the six poached BIG-12 schools:

Team Win Loss
Arizona 9 44
Arizona St. 6 2
Oregon 12 18
Oregon St. 4 6
Stanford 6 10
UCLA 10 10
USC 21 3
Washington 11 13
Washington St. 5 14
Total 84 120
--------------------------------------------------------------
Team vs Opponents
Arizona 1-12(CO)1-1(Ok)3-3(OkSt)0-1(TX)0-1(A&M)4-26(TTech)
Arizona St. 2-0(CO)1-0(OK)2-1(OkSt)0-1(TX)1-0(TTech)
Oregon 1-4(TX)2-0(TTech)1-6(OK)1-0(OkState)7-8(CO)
Oregon St. 3-2(CO)1-1(OK)0-2(TX)0-1(TTech)
Stanford 3-3(CO)1-4(OK)2-2(TX)0-1(A&M)
UCLA 4-2(CO)1-3(OK)1-1(OkSt)2-2(TX)2-2(A&M)
USC 5-0(CO)6-2(OK)4-1(TX)3-0(A&M)3-0 (TTech)
Washington 5-5(CO)1-2(OK)1-1(OkSt)1-3(Tx)1-2(A&M)2-0(TTech)
Washington St. 2-4(CO)0-3(OK)2-1(OkSt)1-2(TX)0-2(TTech)0-2(A&M)

————————————————————–

If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development. –Aristotle

Heeding Aristotle’s advice, if we are to understand the PAC-10 by observing it’s beginning and development, we come to the conclusion that, from a competitive standpoint, the future of the league appears grim. Only USC and ASU have a winning record versus the six teams joining the conference, with the eight remaining teams holding a 57-115 record all-time. That is a winning percentage of 33%. Arizona, with a combined 9-44 career record versus the six aforementioned foes, looks to be in gravest danger. Texas Tech and Colorado have absolutely owned them, going 38-5 versus the Wildcats.

What history tells me is that the founding members of this conference better adjust their game and play Southern/Midwest style football if they want to compete. It’s a different brand of football. One that is more effective than the finesse/speed game played by the current PAC-10. Beaver fans: the days of walk-ons starting on your offensive line are numbered. In 2012 they will be over (at least if you want to compete versus the Eastern division). You simply cannot bring that line to play Texas or Oklahoma. There is a reason I have been hyper-critical, and it is going to become even more evident in the coming years. Enjoy the waning moments of this epoch while they’re still upon you. At the same time, get on my back and demand more, because we’re going to need it.

Jump to Bottom
  • Quatre says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I believe ASU also holds a winning record against those six schools if I’m reading your chart correctly.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Good catch. Smallest sample size of the bunch, but 6-2 overall.

  • beavers4life says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I think this change will help in recruiting guys from Oklahoma and Texas. It’s the Arizona schools that will suffer in recruiting because we won’t be playing in Arizona all that often. The chance for future recruits to be able to play in their home state of Oklahoma and Texas will be a huge advantage.

    Riley(and many coaches) recruit players’ families as much as the players themselves because they have to win the families approval to where they would like their son to play. Recruiting players from those 2 states will be easier for Arizona schools, but at least they will be on tv for their families to watch their games live in Oklahoma and Texas(pending the new tv deal and Pac-? getting their own television network.

    As far as the history is concerned, ya we probably won’t do well right out if the gate against them, but I guarantee you we have a better chance of getting better players than Wazzu and probably Washington. Also with USC losing 30 scholorships over the next couple of years allows us to pick up on some of those players that are good enough for scholarship and know it and will start at a university that they know they will start either right away or redshirt and have 5 years depending on need of position. I like this move by the Pac-10 president. More money equals better facilities and less money on the fans tickets to compensate the low income of the Football team. Basically this new deal will rule out us having to play BSU, TCU, Penn State, LSU, and many other schools for revenue reasons when we can play PortlandSU, EWU, Cal State, San Diego State…etc. etc.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      “I think this change will help in recruiting guys from Oklahoma and Texas”

      Are we going to beat out Oklahoma or Texas for players who are actually decent? In Arizona we can do that, but I’m not convinced this staff can recruit those states when OK/TX and the rest of the PAC will be there as well. That is a ton of competition. OK/TX will also be picking meat off the bone in southern Cal.

      An interesting study would be how many DI recruits are produced west of Texas, and then divide that number about the 16 teams/85 scholies (75 for USC) and see if every team can actually field a roster of DI talent. My guess is no.

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Since Langsdorf has a good footprint in that area, we have a head start with the kids in the area.

      One thing that might get us a look or two from some kids who are thinking that they want to get away from home is that they might really enjoy a small conservative town over all the blitz and glitz of the other towns/cities they visit.

      Vast country makes you wont for one of two things… big city or more country.

      I actually think Nebraska loses out on this whole thing. They have been making strides on the West Coast, but they gave it all up for the Big Next. They’ll still recruit on the West Coast, but they shouldn’t expect much with what the Big XII South is going to tell kids.

  • JackBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I’d like to know what the Az schools’ records against those teams has been since they’ve been in the Pac 10. I’d be willing to bet UA was just a WAC patsy for many of those losses.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Since they joined the PAC-10 they’re 1-2-1 and haven’t played in over 20 years.

      They were both members of the “Border Intercollegiate Athletic Association” for nearly 30 years and that’s when most of the damage was done. This ended in 1961.

      It’s been interesting looking into the history/rivalries of these schools. I did not know Texas Tech and Arizona went back this far and had this kind of history.

  • JackBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Here’s a fun one for all of us.

    Larry Scott was at aTm this morning, and he’s now in Lubbock. One can only assume that he’s cleared his schedule from now until Tuesday to remain in Austin.

    Notice the registered owner of the plane Scott’s using:
    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N228PK

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Funny.

      A&M looks to end up in the SEC now. A lot of uncertainty floating around…

      • blazerbeav says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Have you thought about what teams you’d like to see in lieu of Texas A&M? I’ve heard Utah and Kansas with the edge going to Kansas. Seems like a good idea to bring in a top-tier basketball program.

        How weird would it be to see Kansas playing the Beavs at Gill?

      • angrybeaver says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Utah is a better academically than Kansas and a geographic fit. They are similar to CO so that is a potentially good rivalry. Kansas gets more eyes on the conference further east. Both have similar TV markets, with Kansas 2 slots higher. Thus they will likely be the pick. Kansas in Gill would be carnage.

        I’m really concerned about OSU being 3rd tier. Always was, but with the focus on PAC-10 academics right now it’s doubly embarrassing. They really need to do whatever it takes (like other schools do) to get into the first tier.

        • JackBeav says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Pay Mort Zuckerman some money?

        • angrybeaver says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I mean, if that’s what it takes. 3rd tier is ridiculous, and it’s embarrassing with all eyes now on the PAC-10 academics.

          • JackBeav says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/how-we-calculate-the-college-rankings.html

            This has always been a joke. I think ‘peer review’ will include a survey of high school counselors next year.

            I have major problems with a methodology that touts itself as objective then applies subjectivity to more than 50% of its rankings index.

            US News also changes their methodology from year to year in order to hype the horse race and sell their rag. That’s tantamount to an admission that they lie for money.

            If a high school student is looking at three colleges and chooses their destination based on these rankings alone, how do they feel when they discover that they made the wrong choice a year or two later?

            I think ‘joke’ is way too kind.

            What are we to think of any methodology which has UO and OSU tied in the sciences?

            I suspect that OSU is one of the 8.8% (also an absurdly high number in terms of data variance) of universities which do not respond to their ‘survey’.

        • JackBeav says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Utah is a better academic fit, but BYU dominates their market and always will. KU brings almost all of Kansas as well as a majority of Missouri with it. I’ve heard enough Mizzou fans complain about KU getting coverage while they are relegated to some scrub status in their own state.

          Both teams have won a recent BCS bowl, but KU brings more national cache.

  • CastorNation says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I think the past could be a precursor of things to come. But I believe the Pac 10 plays each other better than OOC games because of familiarity. And becoming familiar with the new schools will help. And as has been mentioned, recruiting will change. Pretty much our recruiting is in our own back yard now, the west. But soon our back yard will include Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado. Another point is the numbers comparison. Football wasn’t really important in Oregon until this century. Sure they have had teams back into the 1800′s, but not like now. Obviously football wasn’t important to OSU ( the institution ) during the 28 year streak. I look at OSU football as a twelve year old program. And from that perspective it looks a lot Rosier. And look at USC’s success with the big 12 and the fact they haven’t won in Oregon in 5 years. Some of those years it was said of USC ” this is the greatest team to take the field “ever” in college football history.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      OSU had some great teams in the early-mid 20th century. See Stiner and Prothro. I disagree that football wasn’t important until this century.

      Familiarity does breed a comfort level. Let’s not go overboard with the wins over USC. The other “powers” OSU have played (Boise St, Penn State, etc) have crushed them.

      Problem with Oklahoma/Texas and the rest of the Big-12 is they play a hyper-aggressive/confident power game. PAC-10 ball is generally more finesse and skill position oriented (rather than line play that dominates the Big-10/Big 12). This makes sense when you consider weather during football season in the midwest/east. West coast teams need to toughen up. PAC-10 definitely needs to get tougher in order to compete with the southwest/midwest teams joining us.

  • Jim S says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Those numbers make my heart hurt. Though, if you throw out Arizona, then 75-76 looks much more respectable. Not sure if Arizona is a legitimate outlier, and either way, the Pac record is propped up by USC.

  • JackBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Now we’ll see how good Chip Brown’s sources are. He reported early this morning that Texas was going to stay in the Big XII and go with Beebe’s new plan.

    Then Joe Schad (ESPN) comes in with his sources (unnamed administrators at a couple universities) and tells us that Beebe’s plan has “zero” and “very little” chance of success.

    I think they could both be correct. Beebe’s plan gives UT everything plus dessert. aTm never liked that UT was exploring a UT Network possibility. There’s so much distrust between the Big XII schools right now, that the remaining schools would immediately go out and look for better options once they reel the South division back into the fold.

    And that’s if they do reel them in. aTm could take one look at Beebe’s plan and laugh all the way to the SEC. This whole process has reminded me of why I thought at one time that aTm can take their turditions and go elsewhere.

    UT might look at the Beebe plan (as really weak as it is) as an opportunity for more money on the athletic side. But the academics at UT are drooling over the opportunity and huge huge amounts of money available on the academic side.

    If they think they’re going to pull one over on Larry Scott by holding out for more, I think they lose that game as well. Scott has proven to be effective and forward thinking. Having Weiberg at his side probably helps, but it’s as if he has the playbook for everyone he talks to.

    • blazerbeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Joe Schad is now reporting that “[Chip Brown] is correct. Beebe’s proposal, one source said, is “gaining traction.”"

      It’s even in the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/sports/ncaafootball/15colleges.html

      I have to say if we have to go to a Pac-12 with Colorado and Utah I don’t see that as a positive for many reasons.

      Colorado has been an under-performer* and what does Utah actually bring? Seems like we rolled the dice by accepting Colorado and the tides may have turned…

      *”The loss of Nebraska and Colorado should have been a loss of about 16 percent to the league’s revenue generating capacity. But because Colorado was an underperformer, the league lost only about 8.6 percent of its value with the loss of Nebraska, according to sources with knowledge of the Beebe Plan.”

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Beebe’s blowing a lot of hot air up some loose skirts. Take a look at this:
      http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/06/assessing-the-financial-impact-of-pac-10-expansion/

      Adding CU and Utah would bring us to the same viewership totals as the Big Televen pre Nebraska. Assuming the Pac 10 might be aggressive in their new TV deals, $11 per household would not be out of the question. That would put revenue distribution at about $17.4m per school.

      So in market numbers, Colorado brings $17m by itself–as well as excellent academics. Utah would also bring excellent academics, but their market only brings $10.4m. But they would also add the possibility for a championship–valued anywhere from $3-6m.

      I’m going to assume that the Pac 11 will also be aggressive in their pursuit of a conference network. I believe we have resources within the conference which would derive more revenue from our network than the Big T12n derives from its own (ie sports marketing, journalism, media departments within the conference itself).

      So I think we’re being conservative with these numbers.

      Beebe is telling everyone that he can get $14.8 per household ($17m per school with ~11.5m households) from a TV contract? And he’s going to do this with UT owning their own television inventories with their own network? And they lose their championship game as well?

      Given that Beebe has scrambled to come up with this highly dubious and reactionary plan, how does he plan to present these numbers as fact? He’s going to back into what the Pac 10 has been for the last decade, only with less market value. He doesn’t have nearly the product that the SEC has, and he doesn’t have nearly the market the Big T12n or Pac 11 do. So where is he getting these numbers?

      My guess is that he has a reserve of many such ideas which require a bidet after they’re deposited.

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Another thing to consider is that if Beebe does manage to keep the Big XII together with the ten remaining schools AND he manages to get them the money he’s promised them, then the Pac 11′s new uber-commissioner has been given the gift of a lifetime with upcoming TV talks.

      And the SEC would have to expand just to be able to restructure their TV contract. I wouldn’t expect them to sit by idly while what they perceive as inferior conferences get bigger money than they do.

      Then the whole conference re-alignment discussion moves to the East Coast, and the Big T12n might move at that time as well. If I’m Kansas and K State, I’m petitioning the Big T12n for membership as soon as everything dies down in order to not be in this situation when the Big XII implodes–which it will do in the near future anyway.

  • JackBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Re US News ‘rankings’… because the jackass ‘rankings’ irk me to no end…

    Frankly, angry, I’m surprised you give US News any credit at all given your disposition toward crap thought and its real effect.

    You would not concede that Beav fans are rational when they deify Mike Riley. Yet that same subjective idiocy is seen as somewhat credible when it’s a less substantiated, but national perception?

    I would be embarrassed to report even the subjective survey results with only 91% participation. 96% would be the absolute minimum for me to even feel comfortable claiming a consensus. >98% should be the target.

    And that’s just the response on the subjective survey as a whole. They sent out the same kind of crap survey to department heads, and they received about a 25-35% response.

    Yet they publish their departmental ‘rankings’ results as complete? Robert Morse is just a moron.

    I’m not saying OSU is the bee’s knees here. I think we rank somewhere around 70 in the US and 110 internationally. We can do better than that by far, and I think we’re headed the right direction with the academic facility upgrades that have taken place–or are in the process.

    But considering that UO is ranked somewhere around 275 nationally and about 650 internationally, I look upon US News as an outlier in statistical analysis… mostly because they don’t analyze any statistics. They are a popularity contest and nothing more. And even that existence is marred by only 91% participation.

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Check that. UO’s ranking above is only one ranking from one study, albeit a much more respected study than US News. I would consider it an outlier as well. UO probably ranks somewhere around 150 in the US and about 275 in the world. I know they recently received a nice grant from the NSF for their nano-sciences , and their psychology, molecular biology, special education, architecture and marketing departments are highly respected. But that’s about it.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Oh, I definitely think US News is bogus. I wrote about their problems in the past. Two things:

      1. Most recruits look at that, so it’s important to be tier 1.
      2. Other sources (princeton review, etc) rank OSU low, not just US News.

      • JackBeav says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Princeton Review? We just went from one bogus study that was based on subjective surveys of college administrators to another that is wholly based on student surveys?

        I don’t even agree with their rankings for ‘biggest party schools’.

        ARWU, HEEACT, 4icu.org, and now Webometrics are the best indices, and each has its own flaws. But they give a good snapshot of any one university when looking at them as a whole. I would add THEWUR to this list, but they have been torn to pieces by UK media due to their heavily weighted UK-centric rankings.

        If only the US media had the cajones the UK media does….

  • bpragmatic says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Angry,
    Any idea as to how many of those games were away vs. home?

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      The Arizona/TTech games or what?

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      If you meant the AZ/TTech games 18 were in Tuscon, the rest in Lubbock.

      All the Beavs games were away except two versus Colorado in Portland (Beavs won both).
      The Beavs played in Austin in 1980 and 1987. The lost 35-0 and 61-16. Scary.

      • bpragmatic says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I was just wondering cause I am under the impression that, in general, pac 10 schools tend to play those types of games away rather than at home, although I can’t say for sure. If so, I think you have to at least factor that into your analysis of wins and losses, since playing those types of games away can add a significant degree of difficulty.

      • angrybeaver says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Yeah, most are on the road. Like Oklahoma, they’ve been to Eugene once. Ducks went to Norman five times.

        That tends to be the pattern, with the lower teams like Oklahoma State playing more in Pac-10 country. Basically, the big dogs don’t come to you.

  • angrybeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    PAC-10 going to come out of this with egg on their face if this falls through.
    Would be better off without CO/Utah and a new tv deal while trying to amend the conference championship game to 10 teams. CO/Utah are going to kill scheduling and recruiting if they split the conference north/south.

  • JackBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I think the rumors that ESPN is pushing the money for Beebe’s proposal is founded in something real.
    http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/06/conference-realignment-threatens-all-powerful-espn/

    If that’s the case, then the other conferences will really step up their demands for bigger TV contracts.

    And looking at the structure of Beebe’s plan leads one to wonder what the have-nots will think of being scrub teams in the Big XII. Yeah, they’re getting more money, but they’re being relegated to also-ran status with the numbers favoring UT, OU and aTm.

    This is pretty funny stuff. I don’t think the Pac 10 loses ground if the Big XII manages to stay together. We’ve shown that the old ways of Hansen’s regime are gone.

    I do agree that any one division losing the SoCal connection would put it at a disadvantage. So that might end up being something which affects half the conference. But Scott has shown that he’s creative and solution oriented.

  • angrybeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    The Beavs played in Austin in 1980 and 1987. The lost 35-0 and 61-16.

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      We scored in ’87? Are you sure you didn’t remove 16 points from UT’s ’80 score and give it to the Beavs just to make us look good?

  • JackBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Utah fans are pretty excited at the moment. I don’t think they have much love for their MWC counterparts.

  • Warren says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Who are the most realistic shots at getting now?

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Utah.

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Utah is most likely IF we expand further.

      The value would be not as great as the Denver market, but it allows a championship game and a travel partner for CU.

  • angrybeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    K, now it’s official.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5286672

    I have to say, I am glad. The money was enticing, but I don’t feel any of those schools was a good match. Problem now is that we have 11 teams…

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      UT and aTm would work as academic counterparts, but aTm is a horrible cultural fit. UT is pushing it with their insistence on being the big dog.

      I don’t think Scott goes past Utah, and that’s only an if as of now. He did visit SLC before he flew to Okie on Saturday, so one can only assume that he made overtures at that time.

      There just aren’t many good fits within the bounds of our conference left. I still think New Mexico and Hawai’i are excellent fits, but they don’t bring much as far as markets are concerned. Other excellent fits academically are UC Davis and, in my wild dreams, British Columbia. But both have to make major strides in their athletic facilities to be up to snuff. UBC is in the process of trying to become a D-II team, and Davis is still rather new to D-I.

      • angrybeaver says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        “I don’t think Scott goes past Utah”

        I agree.

        He may have forced himself to add them now in order to get a championship game and make up the revenue carrot he just dangled in front of pac-10 schools.

        The million dollar question is whether adding these two TV markets (and a potential championship game) increases revenue per school, and if so (you’d think the answer is yes), by how much. Because if we’re going to a North/South the loss in recruiting might not be worth the added revenue. If we stay at 11 there’s no championship game, Colorado has no travel partner, and is likely gets the cold shoulder from the rest of the league. Pac-10 recruiting just got spread thinner with the addition of Colorado. Hope Scott didn’t mess up.

  • angrybeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Anyone else want to subtract Colorado now?

    Can we give them back?

    I mean, if we got Texas it made sense, but now we have to split revenue with a team that owes 10 million to the Big-12 (for leaving).

    Pretty sure Larry Scott got punked. Texas just got their own network, fewer schools to share revenue with, and more control in that crappy conference of theirs. You had to figure Texas was bluffing since the Big 12 does not have even revenue sharing.

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Technically they don’t ‘owe’ anything. The by-laws state that they just don’t receive half the revenue they would have for the two years they remain in the conference. Since they were at the bottom of the heap in the Big XII, they don’t lose much… something like $3.5-4m per year.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      From Ted Milller:

      “What about Colorado’s “exit” fees from the Big 12, which could be as much as $9 million. Colorado and Pac-10 officials were vague on the matter, though it seems the conference has agreed to at least pick up a portion of the bill. It’s also possible there might be a legal challenge to the fees.”

  • angrybeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Ducks get the #8 QB in the country.

    Beavs have yet to land a recruit.

    Good times.

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I thought they had Mariota. What happened there? Did they pull the old ‘Chip doesn’t offer w/o a visit’ then offer someone w/o a visit?

      For the record, Mariota scares me more than a Dixon, Thomas or Costa type does. He’s a tough kid with good wheels and a game arm. The other three are breakable.

  • Warren says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    We did make Yruretagoyena’s list though.

    • JackBeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      How many and who else? I imagine UO, the Az and Wa schools are there also.
      ?

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      The good thing about this prospect: he’s clearly done his research. Whatever decision he makes it will be informed and not a five minute sales job.

Write a Comment

  • Categories

  • Archives