1. The Beavers don’t have a verbal and it’s nearly July. The Beavs do this every year, so it’s not too surprising, but what is shocking is that we’re not even hearing rumors of a possible commit. Usually there are rumblings. Just crickets this year.

2. The Beavs are looking at a kid named Burton DeKoning. His offers are Cal Poly, Nevada, and Utah State. Uh…

Not only that, but watch the 3rd play on this video:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5250561

Being too slow to run down the QB and then flailing on the ground.

Yep, that’s the job description for a Beaver linebacker.

Come on, Mike Riley, give me a break.

This is Kameron Krebs part 20.

Note to Larry Scott: when you bluff Texas cattle wranglers you get them hotter than a nanny goat in a pepper patch, and they send you home in two shakes of a lamb’s tail.

Sorry, chap.

The good news is that the conference is better off without the Big-12 south. Did anyone else have the feeling it was a mismatch we were trying to force for the wrong reasons? I feel relief it’s over, and I’m content with the outcome, since I was only for expansion if Scott could land two specific teams.

Okay, so he landed one. Awkward, but not unworkable.

This is what Larry Scott should do:

1. Poll fans of the PAC-10. Ask what they want. I think the answer would be parity (i.e. fairness), revenue, round robin format (for recruiting purposes), rivalries, excitement (e.g. championship game anyone?), and academics.

2. Achieve all the above. How? Just say “no” to Utah. Go to the NCAA and say, “Listen, we have 11 teams and we’re capping it there. If we play a round robin and remove a creampuff from our schedule, change the bylaw and give us a championship game.”

This would give the fan everything they want.

For Oregon State, it would be especially good. 2/11 = 18% chance of reaching championship game. This gives the “have nots” (Oregon State, Washington State, AZ schools) better odds of something to play for. That is, there is at least an 18% of their last game of the season being meaningful. Once in the game, that is another story: the odds are the same as if there were no championship game–the aforementioned .18*.5 or 9% . The positive thing about a championship game, besides revenue, is it acts as a wild card, giving each team better odds of at least playing in a meaningful game. That is good for the league, even if it means the national embarrassment of an occasional 8-3 team beating a 10-1.

Larry Scott seems intent to etch his legacy in college football. He can still do that by being the first commissioner  to get an 11-team conference a championship game. By keeping rivalries and the round robin format intact while increasing revenue via the Denver TV market and a title game, Scott will appease Pac-10 fans while also making his mark in college football history.

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.