Does Oregon football matter

[Angry Red]

Odds of making the playoffs according to ESPNs FPI:

Oregon - 22.6%
Nebraska - 0%

No shit the Huskers aren't making the playoff, and evidently ESPN doesn't think the Ducks will either. I am laughing.

'Member Joey Harrington, lol.

 

[duckboy33]

That is impossible. Every Power 5 team with less than 2 losses has a shot at making the playoff.

Nebraska being lumped in with teams like Rutgers. Counted out before a game is even played. That’s when you truly don’t matter

 

[Wizardhawk]

oregon was historically bad and have had a comeup in the last 30 years or so. using the historical record is like saying a body builder is weak because he was under sized in high school.

Basically they are saying you're still undersized and your muscles are fake.

 

[trojanfan12]

But still haven't fired Helton.

If we were going to have a normal season, I think this would be the "make it or break it year" for Helton.

It still could be his make it or break it year, but considering the unusual circumstances (and the amount of his buyout), it would have to be a pretty big failure of a season. So, next year is probably more likely to be his make it or break it year.

One thing in his favor is that his biggest issue has been that he was far too loyal to assistants who weren't getting the job done. He's finally replaced all of the previous assistants and looks to have upgraded at each spot. The players love him, so if he's smart enough to just stay out of his assistants way, he should be fine and so should the team.

 

[Shanemansj13]

 

[Volbound1700]

Nebraska being lumped in with teams like Rutgers. Counted out before a game is even played. That’s when you truly don’t matter

They should have at least a fraction percent chance to make playoffs. Also, they are a lot better than Rutgers.

 

[duckboy33]

They should have at least a fraction percent chance to make playoffs. Also, they are a lot better than Rutgers.

ESPN has no time for bullshit theoreticals. 0%

 

[Volbound1700]

ESPN has no time for bullshit theoreticals. 0%

Might be the same as Oregon. Someone pointed out that the committee may have a hard time letting in a team that has only played 7-8 games.

 

[duckboy33]

Might be the same as Oregon. Someone pointed out that the committee may have a hard time letting in a team that has only played 7-8 games.

ESPN disagrees

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Remember that one time Oregon almost got close to kind of maybe winning something but got embarrassed by a 3rd string QB? Take that away and they still have nothing anyway?

I remember that!

 

[OlyDuck]

Remember that one time Oregon almost got close to kind of maybe winning something but got embarrassed by a 3rd string QB? Take that away and they still have nothing anyway?

no actually. i remember that time Oregon made the championship game after ending Florida States 29 game winning streak before playing a game that was still 28-20 going into the 4th quarter. and while Jones the 3rd string QB played an alright game he wasnt who embarrassed Oregon. No that would be 1st round 4th pick Ezekiel Elliot and his 246 yards and 4 tds.

 

[OlyDuck]

also i feel like by virtue of asking Oregon is on your brain therefore they do in fact matter.
teams get more hate when they matter. nobody gets on these boards with hate for Texas State, Uconn, or San Jose State.

 

[Volbound1700]

also i feel like by virtue of asking Oregon is on your brain therefore they do in fact matter.
teams get more hate when they matter. nobody gets on these boards with hate for Texas State, Uconn, or San Jose State.

Does Nebraska count? People seem obsessed with Nebraska and Texas on here.

 

[OlyDuck]

Does Nebraska count? People seem obsessed with Nebraska and Texas on here.

they used to matter more than they do now but i heard they were back

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Does Nebraska count? People seem obsessed with Nebraska and Texas on here.

And yet the obsession with Oregon continues, as evidenced by this thread.

 

[Volbound1700]

And yet the obsession with Oregon continues, as evidenced by this thread.

Haha, I didn't create the thread.

 

[duckboy33]

Here is the problem ... I am not convinced PAC football matters, which means I am not sure how much Oregon matters. I say that as someone who believes college football is better with a great PAC. I grew up when USC and UCLA were great programs. I loved the Oregon run 6 or 7 years ago with their fast paced offense and their flashy uniforms. But, today the PAC simply doesn't matter in the scheme of things and I can't imagine that can be denied. How many CFPs have they not been in? How many teams are ranking in the top 25 each year compared to others. What's their H2H record against other conferences (I don't really know). Your fanbases aren't as rabid as others. And your commissioner and conference simply blow at what they do. It's my hope that one day we see Oregon, Wash, USC, UCLA and others become top 10 programs. It's best for college football when that happens. But, you need new leadership to make that happen and I hope you find it.

You hinted at the largest on the field problem. The PAC 12 really needs Oregon, UW, USC and UCLA to be good. With two of them being top 10 and the others being top 20. There's not a lot of room for error because the other programs don't have the ability to recruit like these programs. The PAC needs to have those 4 teams succeed. ASU and Utah also have potential to make news and add some depth. Stanford had potential with what Harbaugh and Shaw have done for the program but their administration keeps putting up obstacles for them and I think we are seeing the decline of Stanford football, not just a one year dip.

The biggest problem the PAC has had has been USC being down (with a few years here or there) since 2009, Oregon taking a tumble in 2016 (although it looks like they are recovering) and UCLA being out in left field doing who knows what with Chip Kelly. Washington was solid for 2016-2018. The key for UW is surviving now that CP is gone.

On the Recruiting front:
Oregon and USC are recruiting at levels they need to. UW is falling a little behind with Jimmy Lake but they still have good talent on their roster and a good 2020 season could get them quickly back on par with USC/Oregon. Nobody knows what Chip Kelly is doing at UCLA. You should be able to land top 25 classes on accident at UCLA but he doesn't even have them in the top 50 right now.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

You hinted at the largest on the field problem. The PAC 12 really needs Oregon, UW, USC and UCLA to be good. With two of them being top 10 and the others being top 20. There's not a lot of room for error because the other programs don't have the ability to recruit like these programs. The PAC needs to have those 4 teams succeed. ASU and Utah also have potential to make news and add some depth. Stanford had potential with what Harbaugh and Shaw have done for the program but their administration keeps putting up obstacles for them and I think we are seeing the decline of Stanford football, not just a one year dip.

The biggest problem the PAC has had has been USC being down (with a few years here or there) since 2009, Oregon taking a tumble in 2016 (although it looks like they are recovering) and UCLA being out in left field doing who knows what with Chip Kelly. Washington was solid for 2016-2018. The key for UW is surviving now that CP is gone.

On the Recruiting front:
Oregon and USC are recruiting at levels they need to. UW is falling a little behind with Jimmy Lake but they still have good talent on their roster and a good 2020 season could get them quickly back on par with USC/Oregon. Nobody knows what Chip Kelly is doing at UCLA. You should be able to land top 25 classes on accident at UCLA but he doesn't even have them in the top 50 right now.

I agree with you on Stanford. They were good longer than I thought they would be. From time to time the Stanfords, Dukes, Northwesterns, or Vandys will field a good team ... mainly when they get a really good coach. But, they can't last. They simply can't compete for the recruits they need. Occasionally they will stack some up ... Franklin did that at Vandy by redshirting a ton of freshmen one year. But, those coaches typically move on to better opportunities. I went to Vanderbilt undergrad so I've lived this for decades.

I think a change at the top would be helpful. Will be interesting to see how the NIL mixes things up.

 

[duckboy33]

I agree with you on Stanford. They were good longer than I thought they would be. From time to time the Stanfords, Dukes, Northwesterns, or Vandys will field a good team ... mainly when they get a really good coach. But, they can't last. They simply can't compete for the recruits they need. Occasionally they will stack some up ... Franklin did that at Vandy by redshirting a ton of freshmen one year. But, those coaches typically move on to better opportunities. I went to Vanderbilt undergrad so I've lived this for decades.

I think a change at the top would be helpful. Will be interesting to see how the NIL mixes things up.

I think the key to Stanford’s success was David Shaw’s commitment to the program. Like you noted, it’s hard for the high level academic schools to keep coaches that are in high demand. Stanford was in a very lucky position that David Shaw was (still is) a Stanford guy. He could have used the success from 2011-2015 to get a higher profile job but he really does want to be at Stanford. Unfortunately for them, the administration changed the grad school rules for student athletes and it's having a major impact on the football program. A ton of upperclassmen who graduated needed to transfer because of it and recruiting took a dip at the same time. If there's a coach who can figure it out, it's David Shaw, but I'm not very confident about Stanford moving forward.

 

[jon1tanman]