USC will be hit with a “Failure to Monitor” penalty. The fact that agents (rather than boosters) provided gifts and money is going to be the difference. My feeling is the NCAA had their decision back in February, but likely felt they didn’t have enough evidence to go with the harsher “Lack of institutional control” penalty, so they figured they’d make USC sweat and receive negative media attention as additional punishment.

The negative publicity hasn’t seemed to hurt recruiting this year. Though, I’d be surprised if there isn’t a wrist slap on scholarship numbers–expect a small reduction.

Are these penalties fair? No. I’m of the opinion that USC should get the SMU death sentence, but hey, I am harsh. Sanctions will probably wind up being a milder form of what happened in Alabama. An admonition if you will. Keep in mind that barring USC from post season play hurts the Beavers. Conference revenue is shared. So, again, we have to deal with the question of what is ethical or fair versus what is good for us as Beaver fans. It’s difficult.

My problem with USC is that when you look at the product on the field, it wreaks of shadiness, from the coaches they hire to the players they produce (e.g. was anyone surprised to see Brian Cushing test positive? Did anyone ever wonder why he and his fellow LBs were twice as big and jacked as the opponents’ linebackers?). When you look at them, something just looks wrong. This is not grass fed cattle we’re dealing with, boys. That’s the best way to put it. The NCAA has a golden opportunity to put an end to that and level the playing field. Think of the John Robinson (II) era, when USC was good but not a machine. That is normal. What we see now is abnormal. Something is amiss.

As far as PAC-10 expansion, I am growing a bit tired of it, but it looks like the chips will fall into place within the next week. I expect the PAC-16, and this is why: If Nebraska announces an intent to move to the Big-10, Missouri will then follow so as not to be left out. That signals the end of the Big-12. It also puts the Big-10 at 13 teams, which means they will pluck 2 teams from the Big East, likely Pitt and Syracuse, and force Notre Dame’s hand (note: the Big East is Notre Dame’s conference for every sport but football). Notre Dame wants to remain independent so as to manipulate their schedule and hoard revenue, so they will not be proactive and make a jump to the Big-10. If they did this, the Big-10 would be content and everything would remain status quo. However, they won’t, because they could always rejoin the league later as the 16th team. Therefore, despite what the Irish want you to believe, everything revolves around Nebraska, and since they loathe Texas’s influence over the Big-12, the Cornhuskers likely bolt for the Big-10. Expect the PAC-10 to vulture the tasty scraps.

While I dislike the likely scenario for competitive purposes (kiss goodbye realistic hope of a BCS bowl game), it would be nice to have an operating budget, facility upgrades, etc.  Essentially what you wind up with is a de facto playoff system via the “super conference’s” championship game winner moving on to the title game. Could little Oregon State compete in such a scenario? I’ll leave that answer up to you guys.

I’ve been mulling over this topic for a few weeks. There’s a lot of information, and it was hard to synthesize it all. But here I am, finally ready to have an opinion! What I’ve concluded:

1. First off, I am for expansion, but only the addition of two specific teams–Colorado and Texas A&M. Discussion of any other teams, and I turn adamant for keeping the current setup and changing the bylaw to allow a (10 team) title game. If the higher powers do decide to expand…

2. Don’t like Utah as a candidate. Actually, I detest Utah. Not only do I dread driving through those red, cavernous canyonlands, but ever since the phantom PI call on Laybourn I’m extremely anti-Ute. But putting my bias aside, they aren’t exactly a good match. Basically, their TV market seems too small (31st nationally) to split revenue an 11th way, and they suffer from the same political (i.e. religious) affiliations that make BYU a poor fit. And looking at it from their side, you’d think they’d want to stay in the Mountain West since the conference is working to get an automatic BCS bid. I see Utah as a “close-but-no-cigar” match.

3. Colorado and Texas A&M are the two logical additions. The Buffs, 13th overall in wins, have a (split) national title, the Boulder/Denver TV market, and solid academics. That is something to get behind. Texas would be interesting, but there’s a snowball’s chance in hell they’d join, so A&M becomes the next best thing. That’s a good choice, actually. Another research/ag school with good tradition (in several sports), a pipeline to Texas recruiting for the entire conference, and solid academics. The drawback is location–College Station is in the eastern part of the state, even further east than Austin (University of Texas).

4. The conference should pursue their current agenda of a title game, with or without expansion. As an Oregon State fan, you want to see a Pac-10 North for two reasons: revenue and odds. A 1/5, or 20% chance of reaching a title game (with a subsequent 50% chance of winning it) gives every team more to play for than a 1/10 or 10% chance of winning the conference outright. On the other hand, if you are a fan of Oregon State you might not want to see the Pac-10 North for the following reasons:

• The Pac-10 South, by having USC, will be the premier of the two divisions, meaning expect to lose even more recruiting battles with the Cal and Arizona schools. Add the possibly of no annual trips to LA.
• For the reasons stated (i.e. no national contender), expect the North to receive national disrespect and the perennial “weaker Pac-10 division” label.
• Expect the Arizona schools to benefit the most from this arrangement. Currently, a recruit snubbed but USC can go anywhere in the conference and get a crack at beating them for the conference title. While this would still be true, said recruit would likely prefer to knock USC off their pedestal in-division, thus go to UCLA or an Arizona school, with the latter being the biggest beneficiary since UCLA currently recruits head to head with USC.

5. Say the new TV contract is worth 100 million dollars (this seems reasonable given the ACC recently inked a 130 million dollar deal). That’s 10 million per team before any profits from a title game. Does Colorado or Texas (i.e. Austin/Houston) market add more than 20 million combined (probably closer to 25 million after aforementioned title game revenues) to make it worthwhile to the teams currently in the conference? I think that’s the…er… million dollar question. Denver is the 16th biggest market in the country. What does that mean for the Pac-10? It means games are not only on in Denver (and possibly Texas) but also relevant. Oregon State relevant in Texas? Hmm. Needless to say, this opens fantastic recruiting pipelines and national exposure.  Houston is the 10th largest TV market, and Austin is the 48th–I imagine the games out of College Station are broadcast in both cities, and that expansion into these regions would be a good thing.

6. Colorado and Texas A&M, were they to join the conference, would have to give up 50% of the next two years’ conference earnings back to the Big 12 for early withdrawal. My feeling is that this would be worth it long-term and the found revenue of a new TV deal could help ease the blow.

7. The conference needs to get more games on TV. Gone must be the days of regional broadcasts, no TV, and 3:30 kickoffs. East coast viewers need a noon game. Drink your coffee, gents.

8. Finally, let’s not expand simply to expand. The status quo is fine. A conference title game would create excitement and revenue, so it is a logical step. Conference expansion (with a title game) is the biggest risk. It requires the most forethought and should not be done simply to keep up with other leagues. The overall well-being of all 10 universities currently in the conference should be Larry Scott’s first priority. Given Scott’s thoughtfulness to this point tells me he’s going to make the right decision.

Hypothetical: Jacquizz Rodgers bolts for the NFL after his junior season. Fans and coaches alike have to start preparing for that possibility. That James is a year ahead only increases the odds Quizz leaves early to play with his brother. Best case scenario he’s a Beav the next two seasons, but what happens after that?

Are you convinced anyone on the roster can step in and produce 1,500 yards and 20+ TDs?

Dubious at best.

Assume Quizz leaves his senior year. That leaves Jordan Jenkins, Terron Ward, Jovan Stevenson, and Malcolm Marable in the running back stable. Do any of these guys jump out as viable starters?

We have a standard now. It’s Quizz. Maybe that isn’t fair, but the bar has been set, and that’s what we fans expect.

So when I read something like this (from Cliff Kirkpatrick) I become concerned:

The Beavers are at the point they don’t have to go after any special needs the way they did last year when the defensive line was a concern. They have depth in all areas.

Is this Cliff’s opinion or is it rooted in conversation with Riley? I have a note into Cliff asking that question. I hope it’s just opinion, because if Mike Riley doesn’t sense both the urgency and opportunity at RB you have to be concerned. Especially the latter; that is, the opportunity.

What better time to go after a blue chip back? Use Quizz’s Heisman hype to get a highly touted player into the program. The guys behind him are “serviceable” but not exactly viable starters or dangerous players. Some people think Ward is going to be that guy. Maybe. It’s too early to say. But OSU gets this type of (Heisman) hype once every 40 years; they have to take advantage of it on the recruiting trail. If the best you can do from an incumbent’s Heisman run is Terron Ward and Jordan Jenkins then you are a bad recruiter. Anything short of signing a blue chip RB in lieu of Quizz’s career should be considered squandered opportunity. And that’s wording it nicely. But seriously, if there’s a program in America that could be befuddled by positive media attention it’s OSU.

Update from Cliff:

Both. That’s how he feels. Then if you look at the team’s depth chart, the Beavers have people lined up at various degrees of experience.

Wow.