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.

Lalich–suspension/released from team. Correct move.

Olander–community service. Wrong move.

Riley keeps the clown on the roster because it’s a position of need. If Olander were a third string safety he’d be gone. Four offenses and not even a one game suspension? Are you kidding me?

As a fan I am thrilled. I want victories. Olander is a pretty good college DT at this point and a viable starter.

But, as a human being, I’m in awe. I’ve heard of “three strikes and you’re out”, but never “four strikes and you’re in…as our starting defensive tackle!” That seems like an idiotic idiom. Is that like how a double negative don’t mean nothing but a positive? The Beavers will pay for this somewhere down the line, either in Riley losing players’ respect or Olander striking again. Bank on it.

From Cliff Kirkpatrick:

Riley said due to his good behavior between the two incidents there was no reason to consider the first one in the punishment for this situation.

Oh really, Mike? What about Lalich? He was “good” for two years between the Virginia and Shasta incident. The logic used in doling out these penalties is inconsistent. Where is the media? Why aren’t they asking difficult questions? Why aren’t they pointing out the hypocrisy?

And Beaver fan: are you going to try to justify this by using the “degree” of the crime? I have a feeling that will be the retort. “But, Angry, theft isn’t as bad as a DUI!” Go ahead, I encourage you to try that argument on me.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Moving forward…

With Lalich out of the mix, the three best QBs now have opportunity. Notice I said QBs, not best arm, tallest, or strongest. Lalich is a “measurable” guy. He received 4-stars based on his look, not his ability to man the position. Jack Lomax and Cody Vaz are better actual quarterbacks. Our team upgraded by attrition today. This seems to be a common trend.

Here’s to hoping Vaz is allowed to compete in August. He’s a natural at the position–a decent arm, good accuracy, and feisty leadership. Katz is good, but the reports out of spring have me concerned he might suffer from Farve-itis.

Have you ever seen the show “Masterminds” on TruTV? It chronicles brilliant schemes that lined the pockets of the world’s most duplicitous criminals. The show is fascinating because of the internal conflict it creates in the viewer. On one hand, you know these men are criminals. Yet, the elegance and brilliance of their crimes forces you to respect them. It’s in this manner I respect Boise State. They play the game (i.e. system) brilliantly. They are truly masters of manipulation, and that is what is rewarded in modern college football. So, kudos, and I mean that. I wish the Beavers were so savvy.

That being said, I don’t think they’re a National Title team, and further, I think they’d be a middle of the PAC team were they in the conference. “Getting up” for one game a year is simply not the same as having to do it every week. Ted Miller wrote the following piece, and it infuriated me that someone as intelligent as Ted has fallen for the smoke & mirrors that is Boise State. The discussion follows:

Ted Miller:

First, it’s not Boise State’s fault they are in the WAC. I’m sure they’d join the Big 12 or Pac-10 if invited. Moreover, the Broncos are aggressive nonconference schedulers. This fall, they play Virginia Tech and Oregon State, a top-10 team and top-25 team, respectively, from BCS conferences.

Boise State deserves — and has earned — national respect, see a pair of Fiesta Bowl wins as well as a home-and-home sweep versus Oregon. If the Broncos go undefeated in 2010, at this point it seems to me they deserve a chance to play for the national title over a one-loss team from a BCS conference (though a qualifier on that is if both Virginia Tech and Oregon State go belly-up and lose a bunch of games).

Further, you could argue that Texas played a regular-season schedule in 2009 that is comparable to what Boise State faces in 2010. The Longhorns slate looked weak in the preseason and weaker as the season went on. And Florida played only one team that ended up ranked in the final top-25 — No. 17 LSU — during the regular season.

Moreover, I think it’s more equitable to, as you say, “ding” the “have” schools for avoiding competition than the “have not” programs. Those schools you mention have a choice, and sometimes they choose the cowardly path and play four nonconference patsies.

So, no, if USC, Texas, Ohio State, Florida or Miami played Boise’s schedule and went undefeated I would not necessarily put them in the national title game. But I might with Boise State.

Angry:

Ted,
You’re a smart guy, so I am really surprised you’re not seeing through the smoke and mirror show that is Boise State. Let’s dissect your argument.
1. Boise State plays a tough OOC schedule.
2002: Idaho, Arkansas (lost by 4 touchdowns), Wyoming, Utah State
2003: Idaho State, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon State (loss)
2004: Idaho, Oregon State, BYU
2005: Georgia (lost by 5 touchdowns), Oregon State (loss), Bowling Green
2006: Sacramento State, Oregon State, Wyoming.
2007: Weber State, Washington (lost by 10 to a 5-7 Huskie team), Wyoming, Southern Miss (that’s Southern Miss, not Ol’ Miss).
2008: Idaho State, Bowling Green, Oregon, Louisiana Tech
2009: Oregon, Miami (OH), Bowling Green, UC Davis, Tulsa

I have them at 5-5 in their “difficult” OOC PAC-10 and SEC games, having lost to some horrendous Pac-10 teams (2005 Beavers, 2007 Huskies) in that time period. I think you’re being confused by the smoke and mirrors of scheduling, the fact that they tend to win their “big games” on Thursday nights, the outcome vs Oregon the past two years, etc. You’re not looking at their entire body of work. Unless you think playing Idaho, Idaho State, Utah State, and Wyoming are difficult games. Maybe you do.

2. You frown upon the “have” schools playing patsies. Yet, your claim that Boise State deserves to play for the national title, by definition, makes them a “have” school. It is incongruent, Ted, and you know it, to award x and penalize y for the same behavior.